Due date: Friday 1 August, via e-mail before lecture
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
Thucydides. How does Thucydides conceive of the role of justice among political communities? For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Aristotle. Does Aristotle think that Barbarians are natural slaves, and if so, does he think Greeks should rule over them? Provide evidence both pro and con, and decide on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence. For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Aristotle. Describe Aristotle's principles for the construction of his "best regime" and evaluate a modern democratic country (such as New Zealand) in light of them. What does this comparison tell us about Aristotle's conception of political community? What does it tell us about our conception of political community? For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
Cicero. How does Cicero’s conception of the political community and of the proper relationships among political communities differ from Aristotle’s? Does Cicero’s view constitute an improvement over Aristotle’s view? For a fuller description of this essay topic, see here.
General considerations
Check out the general discussion of "realism" started by Nik here in the discussion tab of this page.
Thucydides was born an aristocrat and while his sympathies were largely oligarchic, Pericles' ability to curb the excesses of democracy impressed him. However, he was scathing of Pericles' successors, whose demagoguery he felt led to endless quarelling and prevarication in the assembly and hamstrung the Athenian war effort.
In contrast to Herodotus, an earlier Greek historian, Thucydides favoured an objective political and military account of the war, rather than a moralising attempt to draw ethical principles or appeal to divine justice. He sought primary evidence wherever possible, and was himself involved in many of the incidents he describes. He tells us that he was a general during the war, survived the Athenian plague and was exiled from the city due to a military failure. It is because he was an exile of Athens that he was able to travel among the Peloponnesian allies. This meant that he could view the war from the perspective of both sides. His materialist 'scientific' approach to history was revolutionary and the cause-and-effect relationships he identified in the Peloponnesian War were what led him to believe that his history would be instructive down the ages.
Summarised from Robin Lane Fox, The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome (2005), 165-168.
See also www.crystalinks.com/thucydides.html
What does Thucydides say was the cause of the war? Does this mean Thucydides understands the Peloponnesian war in "realist" terms?
Thucydides states the "inevitable" cause of the war was "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta". In the aftermath of the Persian War Athens took control the Delian League to further the cause of the war, which it did forcing Persia out of the Aegean. However, the league effectively turned into an Athenian hegemony, this was highlighted by the shift of the ''war funds'' from Delos to Athens, and the Athenians reference to its 'Empire'. Sparta in response strengthened its own Peloponessian league comprising of the Peleponnesos, Boetia and other allies. A Cold War comparison can be made (c.f internal affairs, proxy wars, trade sanctions etcetera).
Thucydides' quote can be seen in 'realist' terms (power and security valued above ideals and ethics); rather than labeling it the fault of either side, it gives the impression of cause and effect. Sparta declares war to protect its own interests as Athenian growth was threatening them. Another example is the Melian Dialogue where Athens gives the island of the Melos the 'choice' between becoming a tribute paying vassal, or destruction, despite Melos' neutrality. This demonstrates that war, according to Thucydides is waged in realist terms. The idea of the strong expressing power, and the weak forced to suffer such power. The Athenians inform the Melians that they must do this to keep their empire/league strong. Melos will provide gold and men for the effort, and by example will dissuade other states from anything similar. Similarly in the Mytilenian debate, Diodotus simply states "this is not a law court where we have to consider what is fit and just; it is a political assembly, and the question is how Mytilene can be most useful to Athens."
What does it mean to understand something in "realist" terms (and in neorealist terms - p. 10 of the textbook)? Does it mean that war can be justified or rationalised if it serves someone's self interest? But why would someone go to war if there were no self interest to serve? Apart from realism/neorealism, what are other ways of understanding conflict?
Political realism is a school of thought which treats nation-states as unitary actors on an anarchic international stage. Under the realist paradigm nations will act in their self-interest. Self-interest is usually defined by traditional measures of power (and self-interet) id est their economic, military and political power. Realism also implies that countries who invoke morals, ideals, and ethics when enacting foreign policy are merely using them to cloak their true self-interested motives. It is worth thinking about what 'self-interest' means, especially when applied in the international context today. Can a state really be described as a unitary entity with a self interest?(Some good comments here)
Realism is a descriptive theory of international relations, therefore the ability to analyse the behaviour of nation-states should be reliable. However, when it comes to the more normative questions of whether a war is just or not, realism remains silent. Even if you assume that realism is the most descriptive model of international relations, it is fallacious to conclude that a war is just or morally acceptable - a war simply serves a nation's self-interest.
In class, it was discussed how Thucydides seems to think that the Peloponnesian war was due to the gain of military might in Athens, and the fear that this induced in the Spartans. Though I do not agree with this argument, I observe some of the validity in the points it makes as to how war can be justified. There are however numerous reasons to go to war other than to gain an increase in power. It is precisely what Thucydides argument opposes: morals, ideals, and ethics. To numerous European Christians during the Crusades they believed that they must make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to atone for their previous sins. They sure made war along the way. Conflict can occur where there is a clash in ideals (if you are to apply a realist paradigm one cannot stop the analysis on the surface. The Crusades were just as much about gaining territory and influence which may have been coated with an idealistic facade. The moral authority that it gave Christian rulers to be able to say that they had control over Jerusalem was a powerful and unifying tool for domestic purposes. It is therefore of no surprise that many of the campaigns (including the forth ( which sacked Constantinople) and the sixths (which did not have the popes blessing) diverted the purpose to enriching in the broadest since the agents who went to war. It purpose though was always self-interest as noted above, but it is probably not appropriate to digress) . There is no need for me to gain something to make a fight with you. Lastly, and seemingly the least likely to occur, conflict can arise between groups through irrational thoughts or chaotic emotions. Someone like a king, assuming he is powerful, could be having a bad day and just decide to take his anger out on you by cutting of your head with the guillotine. (The self interest between the way in which a King treats his subjects and rival state maybe easily distinguishable - the monopoly on violence is broken once in an anarchic international arena. But even if it were not true, it maybe true that a King could satisfy his short term self interest by attacking another kingdom because he was angry and acted out of passion this could be to the expense of his kingdom. This maybe a act of stupid but he still acted in his self-interest at the time)
What does Pericles find praiseworthy in Athens?
Above all else it seems that Pericles finds being 'Athenian' praiseworthy, and the 'Athenian spirit' they have. The fact that Athens is a 'free city', built upon each generation, handed down to their fathers who made it strong, and continued by the present generation is praiseworthy. While he will "say nothing of the warlike deeds" that made it so, it is this end result that matters; Athens is "perfectly well able to look after itself both in peace and in war". The people need not be trained from birth to be valorous in war, rather when the time comes the people are "just as ready to face the same dangers as they are". The people are able to bring out the best of everything; money without extravagence, intellect without softness, etc. The people are proactive and "do good to others" rather than expect good to be done to them. The men who die in battle then exemplify the defence of right over wrong, and are praiseworthy, as are those that are left behind to carry on the cause. Of course, this speech is written by Thucydides and deliberately contrasts as heavily as possible with the effects of the plague.
What is the benefit of Athenian empire, according to Pericles? Does this benefit accrue to Athenians or to all the members of the empire?
"We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few." 2.37
"Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition." 2.37
Pericles exalts the government of the Athenians. If you are a citizen then your economic status is independent of your effect on the moderation of Athens' and her decisions. The Athenian institutions are educating not only themselves but also all of Greece. Pericles argues that the Athenian empire and its greatness is due to its free and relaxed methodology. Unlike its rivals, the Athenians are free and tolerant in the private lives of their citizens, but in the public matters he says, "we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws." Athens benefits from its greatness in the form of its lifestyle and government, but all of Greece can learn a lesson or two from her achievements. -->Yes, as Thucydides writes in 2.39 "Our city is thrown open to the world..." and later in 2.41 "I say that Athens is the school of Hellas" it shows that Thucydides thinks that the democracy in Athens could serve as 'good' example for other communities in Hellas (Greece) and that others could learn from the Athenian model. Does this show that Thucydides thinks this, or that Perivcles thinks this?
Is there a relation between Athenian democracy and Athenian empire?
There seems to be a relationship whereby the Athenian way of life is justifiably What do you mean justifiably? - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 maintained by the vassalisation of others. The spirit of the Athenian people is in part derived from their democratic system, this spirit in turn has made Athens wealthy and given the people the luxury to enjoy life. There is no hypocrisy in maintaining this at the expense of others because of the unique focus upon the paramount importance of the Athenian polis. Essentially, Athens could not maintain its democracy if all were democratic. Consider also the second speech of Pericles, after the plague - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
Is the Athenian empire a matter of choice or necessity, for Pericles? That is, do the Athenians have a choice in the matter of creating and maintaining their empire?
Is the Athenian empire just? Does Pericles think the Athenian empire is just?
In fact, for Pericles, the Athenian empire is just because Athens has a culture of justice Better evidence would be required for this claim. Consider that he almost says the empire is unjust in the speech he givers right after the plague - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. For him, the Athenian regime is the best of all cities. Like he says in the Funeral speech, Athens is the only city who has and makes justice equally for all her citizens. Thus in Pericles’s perspective, the Athenians have the best institutions to support the empire. And, for him, Athenians have fight for this empire, therefore they deserved it.
But in his speech, Pericles does not talk about how to treat the people of the empire. For him, Athens is the only thing who matters. For him the empire is a natural evolution of Athens. But in reality, we have to remember, after the Persian war, Athens transforms the Delian league, in its “personal bank”. In order to ensure peace and protection, Athens demands more tributes from its allies. This way, Athens will have the necessary navy against any new threat (we have to remember, Athens wins against the Persian by sea). This transformation of the league was unfair for the Athenians allies because there is no more Persian threat. But Athens had to conserve this empire in order to ensure its way of life. This way we can say, that Athens is only fair with its citizens. The allies have to pay the price to be weak and submit to Athens. This view is inconsistent with the eralier view - they should be harmonized - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
Does the description of the effects of the plague on Athens contradict Pericles' picture of the Athenian spirit? Why do you think that Thucydides immediately follows the funeral oration with the account of the plague?
Pericles paints a picture of a vibrant, enthusiastic Athenian spirit. During the plague people had no enthusiasm and easily gave up hope. They saw death all around them and knew that once they caught the plague they were almost certain to die from it soon. Enthusiasm was replaced with despair. Thucydides probably wants to provide a balanced picture of Athens and not be like other writers who show only the good or only the bad in people This is too vague. Which other writers? What is the point of the balance?- xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. He could also be trying to show that those who rely too heavily on their own perceived 'greatness' will become quickly demoralised by failings and signs of weakness. This shows that Pericles' idea of the Athenian spirit is a bit of a facade and only exists when times are prosperous because when tested the people give up hope. This then would demonstrate a contradiction between Pericles' idea of the Athenian spirit and the realities of the Athenian people.
Why does the plague have such dire effects on Athenian institutions, according to Thucydides? What does this suggest about human institutions in general?
In 2.53 Thucydides describes how the plague is affecting the rule of law in Athens. The citizens of Athens were so desperate because of the plague, that some did not respect any longer the institutions and the laws. "No fear of Gods or law of man deterred a criminal...For offences against human law no punishment was to be feared; no one would live long enough to be called to account. Already a far heavier sentence had been passed and was hanging over a man's head; before that fell, why should he not take a little pleasure?"
I am not sure about this, but we could probably infer, that during a sever crises, a calamity (to use the word of Thucydides), institutions are no longer (or less) respected by the people.
Does Thucydides mean to draw a lesson about the war from the effects of the plague?
Despite Thucydides' general aversion and derision of myth he personally finds it disturbing that so many natural disasters and plagues should go in tandem with the most devastating of human actions, finding that the "Old stories of past prodigies" became credible. Consider though what he says about some of the oracles: it is not thaty they became credible in the way people thought - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 Thucydides seems to suggest that the effects of the plague were at least exacerbated by warfare as the people were confined within their walls by the Spartan forces without. The lessons perhaps drawn are simply that 'fortunes change'. No amount of civic pride and conquest could prevent a plague. What does the plague suggest about Pericle's strategy, for example? (See here Pericles' first speech, before the funeral oration) - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
What is Cleon's basic reason for urging the Athenians to stick to their original decision? Is his speech consistent?
Cleon regards the revolt in Mytilene as a crime against Athens, particularly deserving of retribution because it was tantamount to a defection to Sparta. The execution of the men and enslavement of the women and children is a proportionate response to this crime, because it will act as a deterrent to other cities in similar situations as Mytilene. This attack would be the best advertisement for Athenian power; ultimately it is the fear of this power which will prevent other states in the empire from rebelling as well.
As seen already in the lecture, Cleon supports the condemnation of the Mytilenaeans, because he thinks it is right to implement the decision, no matter how cruel this decision is (Thucydides rephrases Cleon's speech in 3.37 to 3.40). He thinks that changing the decision (and not condemn the Mytilenians) would be a sign of weakness of the Athenian democracy and the Mytilenians would loose respect of Athenians. He sees Mytilenians as subordinates of the Athenian empire. In 3.39 Cleon says: "I say to you that no single city has ever injured us so deeply as Mytilenè… they have rebelled; and entering the ranks of our bitterest enemies have conspired with them to seek our ruin…We should from the first have made no difference between the Mytilenaeans and the rest of our allies, and then their insolence would never have risen to such a height; for men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them. Yet it is not too late to punish them as their crimes deserve ". Cleon argues that Mytilene has to be punished, that their behavior must induce consequences, because otherwise the Athenian empire is in danger. Other allies of Athens could follow this 'bad' example if Athens does not react (it almost sound like the "Domino Theory" of the Cold War, which US Presided Eisenhower used to describe the rise of Communism in Indochina). I think the speech is in a certain way consistent, but if the means that Cleon wants use are successful to obtain Mytilenian's respect can be discussed.
What is Diodotus' basic reason for urging the Athenians to change their original decision? Is his speech consistent?
Diodotus thinks that such an attack would set a precedent essentially mandating a "death sentence" for all cities which revolted. He doubts the efficacy of such a deterrent, because he feels it will remove any incentive for cities like Mytilene to repent, compensate Athens and continue to pay imperial tribute - an improtant source of war revenue. Instead, it will lead to these cities fighting to the death, leading to extended sieges and military action for Athens which will only drain the cities resources and hamper the war effort.
What role does justice play in Cleon and Diodotus' speeches on the Mytilenian debate? Do both Cleon and Diodotus avoid considerations of justice when making their speeches?
In Cleon's speech, the role of justice is wrapped up in interest. He focusses on the justice of the punishment of the Mytelenaeans in terms of the crime they committed: "punish them as their crime deserves." He argues it was a crime to revolt, deserving retribution. In order to deter other states from similarly revolting, punishment must ensue, no matter how cruel.
Diodotus, in contrast, does not speak of justice at all - saying that practicalities are what are generally important in times of war. In this instance, practicalities mean that mercy ought to result. However, when Diodotus, before he begins his speech, says that "he who speaks in the course of right must make himself believed by lying", as "the best advice when offered in plain terms is as much distrusted as the worst... he is rewarded by a suspicion that... he gets more than he gives." Two inferences could be drawn from this:
a) That Diodotus in fact believes that justice is of more importance than his speech suggests - by saying that justice is of no importance, he is protecting himself from those who would believe he had outside interests, and must therefore lie, or
b) That Diodotus is in fact reinstating the realist position - that justice is of little relevance in international relations, and those who suggest that it does are both naive and potentially biased.
Does Thucydides have a position in the debate? If so, what is his position?
What do the Athenians mean when they say "when these matters [i.e., matters of war] are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept"?
The Athenian contingent here represents human laws – man-made realities – where the number of soldiers an army has represents respective power, and the outcome of any war. The quote refers to the 'true' meaning of justice between states:
Real’ justice can only occur between equals. If one party has disproportionate power over another, the bargaining power of that party is jeopardized as the other party is more able to represent his or her interests.
Where parties have disproportionate power (as in the Melian/Athenian relationship), justice depends on the beneficence of the stronger party. Law and ‘justice’ is created by the stronger party, and imposed upon the weaker. The stronger party is able to impose whatever “they have the power to do.” Justice is unable to exist except insofar as a stronger party chooses (and they may well choose none.)
It is in this way that as the stronger party, the Athenians are able to force the negotiations onto their own terms – away from arguments of principle, to arguments of practicalities.
The practical argument here advanced by the Athenians, however, is disproved to a point – when they are unable to control the outcome of the negotiations. Rather than “accept[ing] what they have to accept”, the Melians choose to rely on the very arguments they are precluded from making – divine justice and moral principle, declining to surrender. Although the Athenians do in the end impose their might – destroying Melos – this was not the outcome to which the above quote referred – which appears to assume the reaction of the Melians before it has even been made. Certainly, by refusing to yield, Melos denied Athens – the “strong” - their most preferred outcome.
Does Thucydides sympathize with the Athenian position, the Melian position, or neither?
Thucydides described interstate relations as amoral and anarchic. Therefore, it could be argued that Thucydides sympathized with either the Athenians or the Melians This would be contradictory: if he sympathizes with the Athenians, the Melian position would be incoherent - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. Thucydides wrote "the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept." This enforces his view that might is right. For this reason, it could be argued that he sympathized with the Melian position because they were left with a choice to surrender and yield their political independence to a strong empire, or to defend their rights and fight. It could be said that he sympathized with the Athenian position because by invading Melos, they were simply expanding their empire. Their power was so great that they could invade the island and crush the enemy.So which is it? - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 I disagree, Xavier. The two points of view may be inconsistent with each other, but either is broadly adoptable (if one position is taken, however, the other may then be rejected.) Either party could be argued as voicing Thucydides's personal sympathy. I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the question, as I have found distinguishing between this question and “What can we say about Thucydides' own position from the text?” quite difficult – therefore this answer may be a bit confused. A)Evidence of sympathy towards the Athenians If we accept (as many do, but I contest) that Thucydides actually supported the Athenian policies. There are many arguments favoring this view but I have chosen to focus more on the alternative.
The arguments of the Athenians – that they as the strong will lord over the weak - are fulfilled. Neither the Gods nor the Spartans come to the aid of the Melians, who are destroyed (even if they create some trouble in the interim.)
The way the Athenians limit the dialogue (away from moral matters to practical matters) is not cruel, it is merely the Athenians speaking frankly. It merely outlines the disparity between speech and action. Whether or not the Melians talk about morality, the real decision will be made on whether Athens has significant enough advantage to attack Melos.
The Athenians, in being frank, are not being cruel – a humanitarian end can be extracted– convincing the Melians to save themselves the horror of siege. The fact that they are talking at all implies that they would prefer to persuade the Melians.
The two options presented by the Athenians are the only options available – in the honest opinion of the Athenians, the Melians cannot be allowed to stay neutral or fight against them.
B)Evidence of sympathy towards the Melians However there are also reasons to suggest that he may not think justice is so unimportant as we might think, and that he is actually sympathetic to the Melian position:
Thucydides portrays the Melians as fiercely autonomous, fearless and just – traits specifically praised by Pericles when referring to Athens (e.g.II.40). Indeed, the Melians almost embody “the simplicity which is so large an element in a noble nature,” which Thucydides notes was now “laughed to scorn,” taken over by “every form of wickedness.” (III.83) If you take the Perseus translation (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Thuc.+3.82.8) it reads as: "The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition."
Just because the Athenians say that justice is of little relevance does not mean that this is what Thucydides thinks. If we use previous clues – Diodotus’ claim that “he who speaks in the cause of right must make himself believed by lying’ – and consequently is forced to withhold justice from his speech – we could infer that even if Thucydides agrees with the practical logic of the Athenians, that he may hold moral qualms about the Melians.
Constant reference to the hopelessness of the Melian position by the Athenians provides reader empathy – whether or not the reader considers the Melian reaction as foolish. Given the generally negative feeling in Greece toward the massacre at Melos, were Thucydides defending the Athenian position, one would expect perhaps more evidence as such.
The Melian debate was of little consequence in the actual Peloponnesian War – an almost trivial affair that did not impact upon the final result in any way. What use for such a detailed and unique description of such an event was there, then, other than its moral significance (whether an affirmation of the morality or a negation), particularly given that it is clear that Thucydides neither witnessed the debate nor was provided with any account of the parties’ communication? The contrast between the Mytelenian debate and this excerpt does give the appearance of sympathy for Melos in the face of a corrupted Athens.
The fact that the Athenians are talking to the Melians at all is not Thucydides attempting to show a sign of kindness (if we assume that he doesn’t believe justice is completely irrelevant). It is simply in their self interest to gain the territory (as they assume they will) without invasion - which if justice is important, may be practical, but not good.
The fact that the Athenians fail to convince the Melians, particularly following a dialogue could be a significant factor, suggesting that people fight even against their own interests due to other forces that cannot entirely be ruled out of international relations, such as honor. For more detail on this idea, see my discussion topic.
Given that Thucydides was exiled from Athens, some sympathy towards the Melians could be inferred from his circumstances...?
Based on Thucydides' account of the dispute between the Melians and Athenians, what role, if any, does justice play in determining a state's foreign policy? Explain and assess the arguments of the Melians and the Athenians. (Taken from POLS/PHIL 2005 exam paper)
In the dialogue the Athenians give the Melians a choice of whether the island submits to Athens, pays tributes and survives, or fight Athens and be destroyed. The Melians argue their neutrality- appealing to justice and international law, which guarantees their right to neutrality. They also give several other counter-arguments, mainly that giving mercy to Melos will win the Athenians more friends; and also that the Spartans will come to Melos' aid. The Athenians, however, refuse to discuss their demands for justice- which if compared to the justice exclaimed by Pericles in the funeral oration- signifies the difference in approach to justice in domestic/international terms.
The Athenians offer a sharp dose of true realism Why is this "realistic?" - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. The Athenians argue that the Spartans also recognise this argument, and that they will not assist the weak Melians if doing so will disadvantage Sparta. This is an example of Sparta’s disregard for justice in an international-like sphere It seems more like an example of Athens' disregard for justice - though perhaps something else is meant by this sentence- xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. It is evident that there is a difference in approach to the idea of justice when put in an inside/outside context. Yes, but is this what Thucydides shows- xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
Is Thucydides a realist? What can we say about Thucydides' own position from the text?
Does Thucydides show that war corrupts peoples and individuals?
Thucydides I think believes that war does corrupt people and individuals because war has limits of justice and the pursuit for power and intrests are pushed towards war. War is part of Athenian life, to successed and progress war has to take its place. Thus showing war does corrupt people to believe they need war to fight for their own interests and power. Unclear - needs further explanation - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
Alker, Hayward R. 1988. “The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue.” The American Political Science Review 82(3):805-820. Link.
Ahrensdorf, Peter J. 1997. “Thucydides' Realistic Critique of Realism.” Polity 30(2):231-265. Link.
Fitzsimons, M. A. 1975. “Thucydides: History, Science and Power.” The Review of Politics 37(3):377-397. Link.
Forde, Steven. 1995. “International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism.” International Studies Quarterly 39(2):141-160. Link.
Forde, Steven. 1986. “Thucydides on the Causes of Athenian Imperialism.” The American Political Science Review 80(2):433-448. Link.
Forde, Steven. 1992. “Varieties of Realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli.” The Journal of Politics 54(2):372-393. link.
Garst, Daniel. 1989. “Thucydides and Neorealism.” International Studies Quarterly 33(1):3-27. Link.
A classicist's account of the life, historical context, and work of Thucydides.
Laurie M. Johnson Bagby. 1994. “The Use and Abuse of Thucydides in International Relations.” International Organization 48(1):131-153. Link.
Kateb, George. 1964. “Thucydides' History: A Manual of Statecraft.” Political Science Quarterly 79(4):481-503. Link.
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2001. “Thucydides the Constructivist.” The American Political Science Review 95(3):547-560. Link.
Monoson, S. Sara, and Michael Loriaux. 1998. “The Illusion of Power and the Disruption of Moral Norms: Thucydides' Critique of Periclean Policy.” The American Political Science Review 92(2):285-297. Link.
Orwin, Clifford. 1986. “Justifying Empire: The Speech of the Athenians at Sparta and the Problem of Justice in Thucydides.” The Journal of Politics 48(1):72-85. Link.
Orwin, Clifford. 1989. “Piety, Justice, and the Necessities of War: Thucydides' Delian Debate.” The American Political Science Review 83(1):233-239. Link.
Orwin, Clifford. 1988. “Stasis and Plague: Thucydides on the Dissolution of Society.” The Journal of Politics 50(4):831-847. Link.
Orwin, Clifford. 1984. “The Just and the Advantageous in Thucydides: The Case of the Mytilenaian Debate.” The American Political Science Review 78(2):485-494. Link.
Orwin, Clifford. 1989. “Thucydides' Contest: Thucydidean "Methodology" in Context.” The Review of Politics 51(3):345-364. Link.
Orwin, Clifford. 1994. The Humanity of Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Links: Library catalog.
A thoughtful examination of the political philosophy revealed in Thucydides' work.
Palmer, Michael. 1989. “Machiavellian virtù and Thucydidean aretē: Traditional Virtue and Political Wisdom in Thucydides.” The Review of Politics 51(3):365-385. Link.
Reeve, C. D. C. 1999. “Thucydides on Human Nature.” Political Theory 27(4):435-446. Link.
Saxonhouse, Arlene W. 1978. “Nature & Convention in Thucydides' History.” Polity 10(4):461-487. Link.
Aristotle was born around 384 BC in Thrace. His father was the court physician to Macedon.
At the age of eighteen Aristotle travelled to Athens to learn at Plato's Academy and remained there until Plato's death around 20 years later. He subsequently became the tutor of the young Alexander the Great until Alexander reached the age of sixteen and became regent of Macedon. Bertrand Russell suggests that Aristotle had little if any practical influence on Alexander; however this is repudiated by historians such as JR Hamilton.
Aristotle lived out almost the rest of his life in Athens, probably writing most of his books and teaching during this period. After the death of Alexander the Great in Babylon the Athenians revolted against Macedon and turned on those who were seen to be friends of Alexander, forcing Aristotle into exile. He died the year after, in 322 BC.
Sources:
Russell, B. History of Western Philosophy. 1942 (2007 reprint)
Hamilton, J.R. Alexander the Great. 1974
Aristotle, like Thucydides, believed conflict between human beings in social life and politics to be inevitable. This theory influenced the theologian in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas. In relation, Aristotle also believed that while strife and conflict are permanent features of comunal life (intra and inter communal strife) he believed the political community has the responsibility to act in accordance with the welfare of every human being -- not just its citizens. He did not think it appropriate to conquer and rule other regimes, because it is denying other human beings their freedom and status as fellow humans. He did however believe that defensive war was perfectly permissible. Source? - xmarquez Jul 24, 2008
Book 3
Chapter 1: What or who is a citizen?
Aristotle begins his book with the definition of citizen, because they “compose the state”.
He first explains who is NOT a citizen. “A citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place”, which means that resident aliens and slaves are not citizens, even when they live together with citizens. Children (“too young”) and “too old men” are not seen as citizen. Aristotle does not mention the status of women (or did I miss it?), but after reading Book 1 I don’t think they are citizens --> "the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" (Book 1, ch. 5).
So, we can infer that all the other Athenians (male, not too young, not too old, not slaves and Athenians) are citizens.
At the very end Aristotle gives the definition: “He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.”
The definition given by Aristotle is “best adapted to the citizen of a democracy”.
Chapter 2: How can a person become a citizen and what if a person is but perhaps ought not to be a citizen?
“…But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens”.
Aristotle questions who is to be considered a citizen. Should it be someone that has parents who are citizens? Does it need to go up two, three, or four generations? Aristotle concludes that the problem is still, "How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen?" Who ought to be citizens? Continuing the reading, Aristotle seems to believe that they must free. Free to deliberate of the correct decisions to be made. These decisions will alter the community and allow them to attain the good life. Aristotle believes that even if there are varying forms of communities, that citizenship is defined by the legal requirements of the society.
Chapter 3: When the form of government changes
Chapter 4: Good citizen v good man. When all are good citizens the state is perfect. Not all can be good men. Good citizens have different virtues that together make up the state like the different parts of the body. Furthermore, citizens (with their different abilities) are all working together for a single objective: "the salvation of the community." A good citizen should be able to rule and obey. The only time the virtues of a good citizen and a good man coincide is in a good ruler. A good ruler must be wise.
Chapter 5: Who is and is not a citizen. Different types of citizens/different definitions of a citizen under different forms of government.
Chapter 6: Forms of government: master over slave, household management, politics. Whose interests is the ruler looking out for?
Chapter 7: True forms of government (rulers govern with a view to the common interest) v. perversions (rulers govern with a view to private interests). The true forms of Government: One ruler (kingship or royalty) v. a few (aristocracy) v. many (constitution).
Chapter 8: Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy. Problems with definitions of Oligarchy and Democracy: is the difference rule by the wealthy or rule by the poor, or is the difference rule by the majority or rule by the minority, or are these the same things.
Justice
Chapter 9: The end of the state is the good life.
Chapter 10: Who is the supreme power in a state? The unjust consequences of the multitude, the wealthy, the good, the one best man, or the tyrant ruling.
Chapter 11: Why the multitude should be the supreme power.
Chapter 12: Politics and equality: those who are greater in the relevant qualities should have the greater positions.
Chapter 13: Who should rule.
Ostracism = getting rid of those who are far superior to everyone else. Practiced by democracies which aim for equality. Royalty
Chapter 14: 5 different types of royalty: Lacedaemonian (generalship with power over religion), Barbarian monarchy (legal and hereditary), Dictatorship (elected tyranny--legal but not hereditary), Heroic Monarch (exercised with limited power of voluntary subjects), Kingly Rule (household management of state).
Chapter 15: The two extremes of royalty
Rule by man or rule by law? Rule by law is inflexible and passionless therefore rule by man is better but it should be a large group not an individual ie. Aristocracy not royalty
Chapter 16: Controversies relating to monarchy: limited monarchy/kingship and absolute monarchy, succession, need for advisers or subordinates
Chapter 17: What natures are suited for government by a king, and what for an aristocracy, and what for a constitutional government.
Chapter 18: Conclusion/Summary
Book 7
Chapter 1: The best life for individuals and for the state is the life of virtue. Those who are governed in the best manner will be able to lead the best life.
Chapter 2: The happiness of the individual is the same as the happiness of the state. Is it better to be a philosopher or a statesman? Despotic governments - don't care about justice. It's unlawful to rule without regard to justice
Chapter 3: Not every rule is necessarily a despotic master/slave relationship. Happiness is virtuous activity, and an active life is best for both states and individuals.
Characteristics of a state
Chapter 4: The population should be limited to the minimum number of citizens needed to achieve the good life. A very populous state will be disorderly and impossible to govern well.
Chapter 5: The Territory of the State must be large enough for its inhabitants to live leisurely. It must also be self sufficient, well protected yet positioned for trade and agricultural production.
Chapter 6: Connection with the sea & maritime power. It is better to be connected to the sea for both protection and trade. A naval force in proportion to the size of the state is also beneficial for protection of the state and its neighbors.
Chapter 7: Character of citizens. They should be high-spirited and intelligent.
Chapter 8: Property: food, arts, arms, revenue, worship, power of deciding what's for the public interest.
Chapter 9: Occupation: mechanics, tradesmen, husbandmen not citizens but are a necessary part of the state
two classes: warriors and councillors. Some people may be both at different times.
Priests are the old men of both the warrior and councillor classes
Chapter 10: Distribution of land: private & public
Chapter 11: Situation of city: health, convenient for political administration and war, abundance of springs, some buildings in straight lines others irregular, walls
Chapter 12: Locations of common tables and agoras
Chapter 13: Happiness & virtue of state & man
Chapter 14: All citizens should take turns governing and being governed.
What is necessary eg war and what is honourable eg peace. Use what is necessary to achieve what is honourable
Chapter 15: Leisure. Temperance, courage, endurance justice.
(Add, answer, reformulate, correct, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
What is the difference between political and non-political government?
When I talk about a non-political government in a conversation I am usually referring to a government that is not democratically elected. However I am unsure if this is what we are referring to here. Can anyone help? What is a non-political government. Is it rulers that govern independent from the political realm of modern states, perhaps like religious rulers of the Nation of Islam, or is it referring to despotic governments that rule unelected. If is is the latter, then I think Aristotle (along with other classical thinkers) realised that a political government, survives on the equality of its citizens. A political government could not govern well when there were only very rich and very poor people because the former "could only rule despotically" and the poor could only "be ruled like slaves" leading "to a city, not of free persons but of slaves and masters"- would a city governed like this count as a non-political government.- kurtsharpePerhaps a better way of stating the question is what is the difference between the government of a political community and the government of other communities, according to Aristotle - xmarquez Jul 28, 2008
What does it mean to say that the state (polis) is natural? In Aristotle’s philosophy, the origin of the cities or polis it is a natural human behavior. Humans beings tend to regroup themselves. It is not a common enemy or fear who makes humans live together. That is not the origin of the “polis”. War is not the origin of the cities. For Aristotle, “polis” is a natural association. For this reason he qualifies human beings as “zoon politikon” ("political animal”). Thus, Aristotle despises Sparta’s political regime because all its institutions are dedicated to war. And for him, a city does not have to think all the time in war. War is tool to reach peace A citation would be useful - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. Also, for him, the fact that a city thinks about war all the time, it is bad because, this city is thinking about its own destruction. But that does not mean Aristotle despises war, on the contrary, he thinks war is always a possibility. War is part of human relation word choice - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008.
What other (non-political) communities are natural? Are there any "artificial" communities? What distinguishes different communities from one another?
The purpose behind the community makes it natural or unnatural. Groups that create functionality in a persons life are edifying to them unclear - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008. To Aristotle, a natural community completes itself or brings about achievement in the end Well, not quite: they satisfy certain natural needs - xmarquez. Aristotle uses the term 'good life' to illustrate this concept of completeness due to community. Aristotle begins at the bottom and most fundamental building block when depicting natural communities, family. The hierarchy in ascending order: family (for basic human reproduction), farm (to meet basic sustanance needs), village (to produce the tools needed for the farm to operate), and polis (to reach something above mere sustanance; 'the good life'). What is the function of each of these? This could also be expanded a bit with appropriate citations - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 Aristotle believes there are also economic communities, those in which incorporate and identify some of the previous natural communities. Each community exists to benefit the participants, whether it is the slave abiding by the masters orders, the serf following the guidelines of the owner, or the father teaching his child the difference between right and wrong. In some form, unequal though it may be, each participant adds to the community and inversely the community invests into them. Ways to distinguish communities vary from the number of participants, the gain of those involved, or the status difference between all members. What are the most essential distinctions, though? - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
The difference between a 'natural' community and an 'artificial' community is the basic necessity of belonging to the group. For example; if a person belonged to a chess playing group they could leave at any time without detriment to themselves but if they were to leave their family that would be 'unnatural'.
What does it mean to say that human beings are political animals? What makes them political?
Man is the only animal that has been given the gift of rational thought, speech, and a sense of good and evil (justice). Human beings in their 'natural' progression lead to the formation of a political structure - the polis which exists as a mechanism for the sake of the 'good life', one guided by virtue in which humans use their abilities to the fullest.
What does the good life mean?
Socrates said that all men desire happiness. For Aristotle to seek the good-life was to promote the fullness of ones nature. Every being has it's own inherent nature, and the good life occurs when these natures are completely fulfilled. A plant has the nature to grow, reproduce, and nourish itself. A good plant will be one that does this fully and will appear healthy and strong. Animals have a higher nature to fulfill then plants with their more acute sensory abilities. Therefore an animal's "good-life" is when it can sense well, be able to move well, have a healthy appetite and more. Humans have an even greater potential nature that brute animals, with the abilities of intelligence and reasoning- so for the good life humans must satisfy all the other basic needs and have the ability of good choice and reason. - kurtsharpe
man nature has specific powers, namely, intellect, will, and the concupiscible and irascible appetites. And so human happiness is going to lie in the perfection or right ordering of those human powers.
What does it mean to say that the state (polis) perfects or completes the family and the household?
Aristotle believe there was a 'natural' progression from the family (which is the smallest unit for procreation), to the household (which provides for the immediate necessities for life), to the village (which provides for the wider economic environment for living, e.g jobs, goods and services) to the polis which completes a human being's (wealthy male citizen) development. This completion in development comes about through the fulfillment of the persons mental requirements, partaking in the arts and politics. This is the good life, what we might call a 'rewarding' life. "And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life." Aristotle, Book 3, chapter 9, line 40.
Further to this, the state is seen as a perfection of the family as it balances out the imperfect nature of man and also his household. Without the state "the unholiest, the most savage and the most abandoned to gluttony and lust" is created. "Justice belongs to the political society". The state enforces its strive for perfection on individuals through education and habituation, thus protecting the children from the partial mind of the father and giving it to the objective law of the state.
What are natural slaves?
Natural slaves are people whose characteristics mean that they are better off being ruled by another. They may have a weak mental capacity for example that means that if they were left to themselves they could not survive or survive very well.
A natural slave is defined (usually) by characteristics unique to the body and the soul. The first characteristic, in terms of the soul, is weakness. The weakness of a soul is the lack of fortitude to govern over others (which is an inherent trait in an individual).
“…he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.”
An example of those born with a weakness of the soul is a person born with a servile soul - this encompasses the inability to command authority amongst your peers. In reality those qualities that define a strong or weak soul would derive from learning (e.g. education in reasoning) coupled with the opportunity that comes from your parents status at birth. In Aristotle's day it would seem natural that those who were slaves appeared to be born with a weakness of the soul because the qualities that they learned were those of servitude. The vice versa is also true.
Aristotle compares this weakness to animals. Aristotle however, does not go as far as to equate slaves with animals. Even though the work and service they provide to the master is indistinguishable between a slave and an animal the difference is in the capacity to be able to understand that they should be ruled.
The second characteristic, in terms of the body, is strength. Nature has endowed slaves with the physical capacity to carry out their service.
“Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves”.
It is, however, not always true that a slave will be born (or raised) with the characteristics that would have seemed natural to Aristotle. "But the opposite often happens -- that some have the soul and others have the bodies of freemen". 'Nature' in some cases will get it wrong. The type of bodies that Aristotle believes nature endows slaves with are ones that are suited to manual labour, just as the ox and other animals of burden.
So is slavery actually compassionate (for those weak of mind)?
Aristotle argues that it is both "expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters" (I.VI) It is actually better for the slave to be ruled and, in a sense, taken care of by the master. When this relationship is natural, the slave and the master are friends and working in the same interest.
Since Aristotle indicates that slaves are a requirement for the polis; Would the life of a peasant be more dignified for all - as most people would be free (in the aggregate) to pursue activities for their own interests?
Do any natural slaves exist, according to Aristotle?
There are two facets to this question, the first is whether Aristotle believe in theory natural slaves existed and the second is whether he believed they actually existed.
Argumentation in favour of the proposition that Aristotle thought there were natural slaves:
Prime facie it does not seem to be in dispute that Aristotle believed that slavery could exist:
"it is clear, then, that in some cases some are free by nature and others slaves: for whom slavery is both beneficial and just". (1.5))
In Aristotle's work there is a clear sense of hierarchy. The point behind slavery, for Aristotle is doing what is in the best interest of the man. Some people are meant to govern, while others are meant to be governed. Aristotle believes that some people need to be ruled. He believes that in certain cases, there are people whom it would be better to be slaves then free. An analogy for Aristotle is the similarity between master and slave; and a man and an ox.
It is unclear whether this is in the exclusive realm of theory, or whether Aristotle actual believed some slaves fitted into this analysis.
Argumentation against the proposition that Aristotle inreality thought there were natural slaves:
On the second facet to this question it is the author's opinion that it is a point of interpretation as to whether we construct Aristotle words to mean he actually believed in reality that slaves existed. The question mush be: how many people fit into this category? This point can only be answered by a personal interpretation of the constituent elements of a natural slave.
As noted above a natural slave has a weakness of the soul that creates an inability to command/rule (1.5); it seems reasonable to infer from Aristotle that the strength of a person's soul is linked to their virtue and the stronger that virtue the less likely one is to be ruled. Aristotle however, says that the difference between a ruler and a slave is not a matter of degree but a distinction based on kind:
"the virtue of the ruler we in maintain to be different from that of the subject; the one being the virtue of the rational, and the other of the irrational part"(1.13)
Therefore it seems to suggest that Aristotle believe the balance between the rational side of a human and their irrational side will determine the servile nature of that human (this seems to be a matter of degree and not kind. It may be argued that the imbalance between bands of rulers and those that are ruled are great as to break the nature of degree). Women and children had a ratio that meant they were more irrational than men, therefore subject to rule.
The reasoning then that Aristotle follows seems to become contradictory (or in the author’s opinion a sign that Aristotle did not think natural slavery actually existed), because Aristotle first states that:
"[natural slaves]…since they are men…share in rational principle, [therefore] it seems absurd [to] say that they have no virtue"(1.13). He suggests that being a human endows one with some capacity for rational virtue (id est "temperance, courage justice").
Prima facie this does not seem contradictory, because it would just seem that a small amount of rationality does exist in a slave. Aristotle however, seems to contradict this notion by stating earlier that natural slaves have "no deliberative faculty at all" (1.13). When coupling these two sentiments together the constituents of the people that are natural slaves are at best negligible or at worst non-existent.
Further to the analysis Aristotle argues that there are also people who are slaves, due to war and other instances that do not come within the sphere of his definition of a natural slave. It seem as a matter of pragmatism that they have been relegated to such a position.
How can it be good for a natural slave to be ruled by another?
When natural slaves, who are ruled by another, ultimately benefit from being animate tools it is good for both slave and master. Just as a sheep or a cow benefit from being looked after in a nice paddock, with feed and water- so too would natural slaves be better off in being ruled by another. This seems to prove too much - don't most people benefit from beeing fed etc. by others? But the slave does not get to pursue any of his/her own purposes - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008 Just as Mill legitimises despotism against the barbarian, natural slavery can be legitimised "provided the end be their improvement". Mill and Aristotle seem to be thinking about different things: if somebody is a natural slave, then he/she cannot be improved (his slavery is natural, not conventional, after all) - xmarquez Jul 20, 2008
The relationship between master and slave represents the ability for one man to control another. If a natural slave is a man who works using their bodies, and this is the best that they can do, then it is best for them to be ruled by another. Just as it is advantageous for an animal to be under human control and be protected from predators, a natural slave can benefit from being ruled by another. They have the means to contribute to the polis and the security of having a master to provide for.
Are non-Greeks natural slaves?
Aristotle in I.VI makes a comment on the Greek's relativism when it come to slavery; "Wherefore Hellenes do not like to call Hellenes slaves, but confine the term to barbarians...Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home, thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the one absolute, the other relative." In pointing this out Aristotle is clearly indicating that the relativism is relative, the 'Barbarian' nobles would feel the same way towards the Greeks assumedly. The Persian's might treat the Greek nobles as nobles on their own terms, i.e., sending emisaries and so forth, but still consider them the Barbarians relative to themselves.
Does Aristotle think Greeks are superior to non-Greeks? Why?
This answer needs evidence - and it is at any rate inconsistent with the answer of the previous question. Aristotle didn't necessarily believe what other Greek citizens believed; and see above. On the other hand, there are citations that might support this position - xmarquez Jul 28, 2008Moreover, the question is why - what reason does he give for the superiority of one people to another? - xmarquez Jul 28, 2008
Perhaps a reason why Aristotle assumes barbarians are natural slaves is the distinction he makes between how different societies are ruled. Greeks are ruled politically with inequalities for the benefit of the polis; man and woman, father and child, slave and master. Non-Greeks, such as the Persians, tended to be ruled despotically with one person with total power. Aristotle could have supposed that a society ruled despotically meant that everyone was a slave to their ruler. This could be reason for the belief that Greeks were superior to barbarians.
What does it mean to say that the purpose of a "state" (polis) is "the good life"?
The polis as "the good life" may not be good for everyone. The purpose of the state being the good life maybe for those that are the 'citizens' of the state, those with control and wealth. But what about the slaves etc? those who are not citizens may not be the good life?. But on saying this the polis is better then any life as it gives a sense of security, control, and belonging to some sort of community for most. "Polis" are there to grow with power and wealth over each other giving the 'citizens' a sense of power and happyness to their achievements, therefore a "good life".
Why do mere relations of interest fail to constitute a political community (Politics 1280b1ff)?
Why couldn't law be "a surety to one another of justice", according to Aristotle? Why is the political community not simply an association with a view to common protection and the prevention of harms resulting from the action of others?
The safety and protection of one's own property is necessary for the production of goods and services needed to live own's life. If a political community was only concerned with protecting external harms from impacting on the members of a society, then it would be only concerned with protecting the necessary conditions required for the society to exist. Aristotle's conception of the political community is broader; it should not only protect, but should be in place to ensure a "good" or virtuous life which is above and beyond the basic requirements of existence. Common protection is thus not sufficient to constitute a political community in Aristotle's view.
Does Aristotle think that political communities are a kind of "social contract"? Why or why not?
No I don't think Aristotle saw the polis in terms of a social contract agreement. The social-contract exists so that individuals can leave the state of nature, due to fear of violence and death. In a polis, certainly a partnership existed, but this community did not exist to avert injustices or to provide economic stability . As discussed above, it existed to provide the good life- "[the community] exists for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together". - kurtsharpe
I think it could be considered a social contract, although imagined in a different sense.To put it simply, Aristotle suggests that people form a community to make their lives good. Liberal theorists suggested that people formed a community to stop their lives from being bad.
There is a difference, but I think it's perhaps more subtle than you let on. - tommathews
What is Aristotle's attitude towards trade? Does he think trade is beneficial to a community? Why or why not?
Aristotle acknowledges that it is necessary to position a city where it is able to participate in trade. States must both import those necessary non-native goods and export those which are found in abundance. Aristotle does, however, argue that a "city ought to be a market, not indeed for others, but for herself." The aim of the city should not be becoming a powerful trading hub in search of large profit, but to gain those goods necessary for the good life of its citizens.
How does Aristotle's attitude towards trade compare to modern attitudes? Are modern attitudes an improvement over Aristotle's? Why or why not?
What is Aristotle's attitude towards labor? What are his reasons? How does his attitude towards labor relate to his views of a good regime?
Does Aristotle defend or condemn democracy?
Before I explain why Aristotle rejects democracy, we have to see how he see the political regimes. For him there are three kind of political regimes:
Monarchy
Polity
Aristocracy
All of them can be corruptible:
Tyranny
Democracy
Oligarchy
The first group of regimes is the good because they look for the common interest. But the second group of the regimes is the bad because they look after only for the interest of their own class:
A monarchy is good when the monarch looks for the interest of all the community. Its corruption is tyranny. The tyrant only looks for his own interest.
A polity is good when the people look after the common interest. Its corruption is democracy. People look for the interest of poor people.
An Aristocracy is good when the aristocrats look after the interest of the city. Its corruption is Oligarchy, when rich people look after interest of rich people.
Like every ancient Philosopher, Aristotle does not agree with democracy or a popular regime. He thinks the city has to be ruled by someone capable of it, someone who has the right education to do it. He does not believe in the mass because is easy to corrupt it. Consider the passages in book 3 about the relatively smaller corruptibility of a group of people: 1286a and following. Does that sound as if Aristotle thought that the mass is more easily corrupted?
What is the best sort of regime like, for Aristotle? How does it compare to modern states?
Aristotle thinks, like Polybius, in a mixed regime: the Republic. But his republic is not like we know it. He thinks in a democratic aristocracy. The aristocracy is a group of people who can look after the city’s common interest. And therefore, they have been prepared to do that. They have the right education. *8This is not correct - Polybius for one thing comes later than Aristotle, and Aristotle does not think the truly best regime is mixed - xmarquez Jul 24, 2008
What would Aristotle think about the Athenians' assertion, in the Melian dialogue, that "justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must"?
What is a common table and an agora?
What is Aristotle's view of war? Is war generally justified?
What would be the international role of the best regime?
Finley, Moses. 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto and Windus. Library catalog.
Explores the issue of slavery among the Greeks. Discusses Aristotle's views on natural slavery.
Ambler, Wayne. 1987. "Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery." Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 3., pp. 390-410. Link.
Smith, Nicholas D. 1983. "Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery." Phoenix, Vol. 37, No. 2., pp. 109-122. Link.
Dobbs, Darrell. 1994. "Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle's Defense of Slavery." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 1., pp. 69-94. Link.
Abstract: Many social theorists, appalled at the moral enormities made possible by the modern scientific conquest of nature, now look to a restoration of classic natural right as a standard for human affairs. But the key role of slavery in Aristotle's magisterial exposition of natural right is typically overlooked. Commentators on Aristotle's account of natural slavery add to the perplexity, charging that this account is culturally biased and logically inconsistent. Such charges play into the hands of the opponents of natural right, whose common theme is the inability of reason to overcome such biases in its search for what is right by nature. Lacking a defense of the moral and theoretical respectability of Aristotle's account of slavery, the restorationists' cause must remain unpersuasive. To provide this defense, I suggest that Aristotle's teleology implies that the natural slave, generally speaking, is made not born. Child-rearing and other cultural practices, which ordinarily promote the natural destiny of mankind, may instead subvert this telos by inculcating a dysfunctional, slavish second nature. Despotic rule may be said to be natural in such cases, and only insofar as it aids the slave in better realizing the telos proper to a human being. Aristotle quite consistently condemns all employments of the slave that are uncongenial to the reformation of slavishness and allows for emancipation in the event of this achievement.
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC) is widely touted as one of the greatest thinkers of Ancient Rome, described by admiring scholars as "perhaps the most civilised man who ever lived" [1]. Due to his proficiency in Greek, Cicero was able to translate many Greek literary works into Latin and thus aid the spread of Greek philosophy and thought through Rome.
Cicero was a prominent and brilliant lawyer, orator and statesman, rising to the position of consul in 63 BCE. Politically, Cicero was opposed to the formation of the Empire and advocated a republican form of government. This placed him offside with powerful figures in the tumolt preceding the civil war, as he was critical of the rule of both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, and refused to join Caesar's first triumvirate with Crassus and Pompey. Following the victories of Mark Antony Cicero was a hunted man and was assassinated in 43 BCE.
Summarised from Robin Lane Fox, The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome (2005), 366-376.
Cicero urged the Romans to adopt Stoic ethical teachings (Stoicism began in Greece).
Key points to Stoicism: (1) No one is outside the real community, the human community -- they developed the idea of 'citizens of the world.' (2) Humans live in a series of concentric circles, first encircling the self, then the family, then the extended family, then close personal friends, then neighbors, then city dwellers, then country men and then humanity as a whole. (3) And our obligation/duty is to give each of these circles their due respect. (4) Human beings are meant to follow natural law, which arises from reason.
Baldson, J.P.V.D., in Dorey, T.A. (ed), Cicero (1965), p.205
Cicero's (as shown by Scipio's position) argument concerning the deficiencies of democracy are similar to Aristotles - that the rich are thought by the mob to be the most virtuous and the best. Scipio then proposes the aristocracy as an alternative between mob disorder/ and the greed and vice that manifests due to tyranny. However Scipio continues to advocate monarchy as the best form of government (pp 24 section 54).
(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading)
Are there any differences between Cicero's conception of the political community and Aristotle's?
In two main points both views are very similar: humans are sociable and the distinction of three regimes (monarchy, aristocracy and “popular regime”). But Cicero’s conception of political community is more realistic than Aristotle’s view. Even a mixed regime is really close from reality (the vision of Scipio will come true, because Rome will be the first city empire to have a mixed regime. According to Polybius, Rome is powerful because of its mixed regime). Otherwise, in any case Scipio talks about a “best regime” ruled by gods or semi-gods. And Cicero’s point of view is more based in the law: Scipio says that a political community is a group of people who agree to be together by laws. There is no community without laws.
Cicero's argument for loyalty to the republic in On Duties is similar to Aristotle's naturalistic explanation of the polis. Both writers build the units of society up from the nuclear family, through the extended family and economic community, to culminate in their individual conceptions of a good form of governance. For Cicero, this is the republic, which "embraces the affections of all of us" (On Duties, 1.57). This is not far removed from Aristotle's argument that the polis is the necessary government to ensure a virtuous life for its citizenry.
Cicero points out that even if the best forms of rule are aristocracy and monarchy, they can easily be corrupted as like Aristotle the value of either regime is dependant entirely on the virtue of its members. The people make the 'common error' of seeing virtue as equivelent to wealth and property, the leaders themselves cling to the title of 'best men' that they have given themselves. "There is no uglier state than that in which the richest are thought to be best" (Republic 1.52). This is very similar to Aristotle's conception that wealth itself is not an ends but a tool.
What are the differences (if any) between Aristotle's and Cicero's arguments concerning the best form of rule?
Scipio says that the best form of rule would be a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy and rule by the people. The next best, and more practical/realistic form is monarchy.
Scipio also says that "the nature of any common wealth corresponds to the nature or the desires of its ruling power." ([49])
If Scipio is the voice of Cicero, which it is not clear that this is true, then he is arguing that the common wealth is more or less defined by the ruling power. This leads me to believe that Cicero, like the Stoics, sees the common wealth or the "good life" as something that is different for various peoples and governments. It is in the nature of the authority to define the common wealth. Aristotle would greatly contest this view. From Aristotle's views, he believes that there are many routes to the "good life" but only one uniform goal. All routes should lead to the same end, the "good life."
Is this really more realistic? What does Scipio really say at the end of the first book of the De republica? What is an example of the mixed regime? - xmarquez Jul 29, 2008. He uses examples such as a single person being head of a household to prove that one person in charge is best. Cicero would prefer an aristocracy or a monarchy for similar reasons to Aristotle; 'Equity itself is highly inequitable' (Republic 1.53). Virtuous people should recognise those with the best traits suited to rule and should be elevatate to the position (if it doesn't occur naturally) as to do anything less would be worse. Similarly, he states that if a job can be done entirely by one, there is no need for more than one. However on the other hand each form of government can easily undermine itself and lead to extremes, so a mixed regime with 'something oustanding and monarchal, something else to the authority of aristocrats, and some things left aside for the judgement of the people' (Republic 1.69) seems best. Unsuprisingly, this sounds curiously similar to the Roman republican system. The Aristocracy runs Rome, though elects two consuls/'kings', or a dictator in times of crisis (an aspect of something Monarchal), but the mob as well have a say through the voice and veto of the Tribune of the Plebs.
Why according to Cicero is there honour in virtue as shown by the respect of fellow citizens? (In the text book)
Cicero felt that the strongest and most important relationship between men of good character was one born of familiarity. He argues that good virtues (justice and liberality especially) are honourable qualities that draw men to men that posess them. He further states that friendship and fellowship are utmost when men pursue the same common good objectives. What he means by all this is that when men strive to achieve a common and joint goal their relations will be cemented by familiarity and similar purpose. And when the men are bonded to each other in this fashion they will see the good deeds commited by others and they will admire, appreciate and honor those persons.
Do we have obligations to people outside our state, according to Cicero? How strong are these?
Cicero states that as Plato said: "we were not born for ourselves alone" (De Officiis 1.7), our country, friends, and family all claim a 'share' in our being. Men "are born for the sake of men" and assisting one another is our duty. However our obligations to other still are ordered by priority:
Our country and parents (they have given us our lives)
Our children and family (they depend on us for support and protection)
Our Kinsmen (we live and work with them to achieve similar goals)
Although we are universally connected by our human bond, we do not hold the same obligations to those not included in the above categories (1.17). Cicero suggests that all should adopt of policy of at least being able to give that which costs the giver nothing to anyone (De Officiis 1.16.51)
Can our obligations to family and political community for example, conflict?
Does Cicero think the expansion of Rome has been based on justice?
No, Roman rule in Marseilles is based on an aristocracy alone, a situation that Scipio does not agree as the correct form of government. I suppose that the next question is whether Barbarians (based on manners) deserve the same rule as civilised Romans.
Does Cicero have a conception of just war?
Cicero believes that conflicts between states should be resolved through rational discussion, if at all possible, as this is a "characteristic of man." The only cause for the use of force is if this discussion fails, and a state must act in order "that we may live in peace unharmed" (De Officias 1.11.35). Even through the use of this force, however, Cicero believes in mercy and justice towards the enemy. Promises toward the enemy must be kept and protection must be provided for those combatants who surrender in battle. In order for a war to be "just," the necessary legal procedures authorizing such a war the state must be followed and a clear declaration must be made to the enemy.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1999. On the Commonwealth and On Laws. Edited and introduced by James G. Zetzel. New York: Cambridge University Press. Library catalog.
Table of Contents
Schedule
- Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, pp. 34-60 in Brown et al. These are also available here: book 1, 21-3; book 2, 35-54 (Pericles' funeral oration and the plague), book 3, 36-49 (the Mytilenian Debate), book 5, 84-116 (the Melian Dialogue).
- ‘Ancient thought’, pp. 17-23 in Brown et al.
Wednesday 16 July- Aristotle, Politics, book 1.
- ‘Ancient thought’, pp. 23-27, 30-32 in Brown et al.
Friday 18 July- Aristotle, Politics, book 3, chapters 1-8 (1274b30-1280a6).
Wednesday 23 July- Aristotle, Politics, book 3, chapters 9-18 (1280a7-1288b7).
Friday 25 July- Aristotle, Politics, book 7, chapters 1-15 (1323a14-1334b27).
Wednesday 30 JulyEssay Topics
For this theme, you have a choice among the following essay topics:
General considerations
Check out the general discussion of "realism" started by Nik here in the discussion tab of this page.Thucydides
Table of Contents
Background
In contrast to Herodotus, an earlier Greek historian, Thucydides favoured an objective political and military account of the war, rather than a moralising attempt to draw ethical principles or appeal to divine justice. He sought primary evidence wherever possible, and was himself involved in many of the incidents he describes. He tells us that he was a general during the war, survived the Athenian plague and was exiled from the city due to a military failure. It is because he was an exile of Athens that he was able to travel among the Peloponnesian allies. This meant that he could view the war from the perspective of both sides. His materialist 'scientific' approach to history was revolutionary and the cause-and-effect relationships he identified in the Peloponnesian War were what led him to believe that his history would be instructive down the ages.
Summarised from Robin Lane Fox, The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome (2005), 165-168.
See also www.crystalinks.com/thucydides.html
Readings
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, pp. 34-60 in Brown et al. These are also available here: book 1, 21-3; book 2, 35-54 (Pericles' funeral oration and the plague), book 3, 36-49 (the Mytilenian Debate), book 5, 84-116 (the Melian Dialogue).Summary
Study Questions
- What does Thucydides say was the cause of the war? Does this mean Thucydides understands the Peloponnesian war in "realist" terms?
Thucydides states the "inevitable" cause of the war was "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta". In the aftermath of the Persian War Athens took control the Delian League to further the cause of the war, which it did forcing Persia out of the Aegean. However, the league effectively turned into an Athenian hegemony, this was highlighted by the shift of the ''war funds'' from Delos to Athens, and the Athenians reference to its 'Empire'. Sparta in response strengthened its own Peloponessian league comprising of the Peleponnesos, Boetia and other allies. A Cold War comparison can be made (c.f internal affairs, proxy wars, trade sanctions etcetera).Thucydides' quote can be seen in 'realist' terms (power and security valued above ideals and ethics); rather than labeling it the fault of either side, it gives the impression of cause and effect. Sparta declares war to protect its own interests as Athenian growth was threatening them. Another example is the Melian Dialogue where Athens gives the island of the Melos the 'choice' between becoming a tribute paying vassal, or destruction, despite Melos' neutrality. This demonstrates that war, according to Thucydides is waged in realist terms. The idea of the strong expressing power, and the weak forced to suffer such power. The Athenians inform the Melians that they must do this to keep their empire/league strong. Melos will provide gold and men for the effort, and by example will dissuade other states from anything similar. Similarly in the Mytilenian debate, Diodotus simply states "this is not a law court where we have to consider what is fit and just; it is a political assembly, and the question is how Mytilene can be most useful to Athens."
- What does it mean to understand something in "realist" terms (and in neorealist terms - p. 10 of the textbook)? Does it mean that war can be justified or rationalised if it serves someone's self interest? But why would someone go to war if there were no self interest to serve? Apart from realism/neorealism, what are other ways of understanding conflict?
Political realism is a school of thought which treats nation-states as unitary actors on an anarchic international stage. Under the realist paradigm nations will act in their self-interest. Self-interest is usually defined by traditional measures of power (and self-interet) id est their economic, military and political power. Realism also implies that countries who invoke morals, ideals, and ethics when enacting foreign policy are merely using them to cloak their true self-interested motives. It is worth thinking about what 'self-interest' means, especially when applied in the international context today. Can a state really be described as a unitary entity with a self interest?(Some good comments here)Realism is a descriptive theory of international relations, therefore the ability to analyse the behaviour of nation-states should be reliable. However, when it comes to the more normative questions of whether a war is just or not, realism remains silent. Even if you assume that realism is the most descriptive model of international relations, it is fallacious to conclude that a war is just or morally acceptable - a war simply serves a nation's self-interest.
In class, it was discussed how Thucydides seems to think that the Peloponnesian war was due to the gain of military might in Athens, and the fear that this induced in the Spartans. Though I do not agree with this argument, I observe some of the validity in the points it makes as to how war can be justified. There are however numerous reasons to go to war other than to gain an increase in power. It is precisely what Thucydides argument opposes: morals, ideals, and ethics. To numerous European Christians during the Crusades they believed that they must make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to atone for their previous sins. They sure made war along the way. Conflict can occur where there is a clash in ideals (if you are to apply a realist paradigm one cannot stop the analysis on the surface. The Crusades were just as much about gaining territory and influence which may have been coated with an idealistic facade. The moral authority that it gave Christian rulers to be able to say that they had control over Jerusalem was a powerful and unifying tool for domestic purposes. It is therefore of no surprise that many of the campaigns (including the forth ( which sacked Constantinople) and the sixths (which did not have the popes blessing) diverted the purpose to enriching in the broadest since the agents who went to war. It purpose though was always self-interest as noted above, but it is probably not appropriate to digress) . There is no need for me to gain something to make a fight with you. Lastly, and seemingly the least likely to occur, conflict can arise between groups through irrational thoughts or chaotic emotions. Someone like a king, assuming he is powerful, could be having a bad day and just decide to take his anger out on you by cutting of your head with the guillotine. (The self interest between the way in which a King treats his subjects and rival state maybe easily distinguishable - the monopoly on violence is broken once in an anarchic international arena. But even if it were not true, it maybe true that a King could satisfy his short term self interest by attacking another kingdom because he was angry and acted out of passion this could be to the expense of his kingdom. This maybe a act of stupid but he still acted in his self-interest at the time)
- What does Pericles find praiseworthy in Athens?
Above all else it seems that Pericles finds being 'Athenian' praiseworthy, and the 'Athenian spirit' they have. The fact that Athens is a 'free city', built upon each generation, handed down to their fathers who made it strong, and continued by the present generation is praiseworthy. While he will "say nothing of the warlike deeds" that made it so, it is this end result that matters; Athens is "perfectly well able to look after itself both in peace and in war". The people need not be trained from birth to be valorous in war, rather when the time comes the people are "just as ready to face the same dangers as they are". The people are able to bring out the best of everything; money without extravagence, intellect without softness, etc. The people are proactive and "do good to others" rather than expect good to be done to them. The men who die in battle then exemplify the defence of right over wrong, and are praiseworthy, as are those that are left behind to carry on the cause. Of course, this speech is written by Thucydides and deliberately contrasts as heavily as possible with the effects of the plague.- What is the benefit of Athenian empire, according to Pericles? Does this benefit accrue to Athenians or to all the members of the empire?
"We do not copy our neighbors, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few." 2.37"Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition." 2.37
Pericles exalts the government of the Athenians. If you are a citizen then your economic status is independent of your effect on the moderation of Athens' and her decisions. The Athenian institutions are educating not only themselves but also all of Greece. Pericles argues that the Athenian empire and its greatness is due to its free and relaxed methodology. Unlike its rivals, the Athenians are free and tolerant in the private lives of their citizens, but in the public matters he says, "we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws." Athens benefits from its greatness in the form of its lifestyle and government, but all of Greece can learn a lesson or two from her achievements. -->Yes, as Thucydides writes in 2.39 "Our city is thrown open to the world..." and later in 2.41 "I say that Athens is the school of Hellas" it shows that Thucydides thinks that the democracy in Athens could serve as 'good' example for other communities in Hellas (Greece) and that others could learn from the Athenian model. Does this show that Thucydides thinks this, or that Perivcles thinks this?
- Is there a relation between Athenian democracy and Athenian empire?
There seems to be a relationship whereby the Athenian way of life is justifiably What do you mean justifiably? -- Is the Athenian empire a matter of choice or necessity, for Pericles? That is, do the Athenians have a choice in the matter of creating and maintaining their empire?
- Is the Athenian empire just? Does Pericles think the Athenian empire is just?
In fact, for Pericles, the Athenian empire is just because Athens has a culture of justice Better evidence would be required for this claim. Consider that he almost says the empire is unjust in the speech he givers right after the plague -But in his speech, Pericles does not talk about how to treat the people of the empire. For him, Athens is the only thing who matters. For him the empire is a natural evolution of Athens. But in reality, we have to remember, after the Persian war, Athens transforms the Delian league, in its “personal bank”. In order to ensure peace and protection, Athens demands more tributes from its allies. This way, Athens will have the necessary navy against any new threat (we have to remember, Athens wins against the Persian by sea). This transformation of the league was unfair for the Athenians allies because there is no more Persian threat. But Athens had to conserve this empire in order to ensure its way of life. This way we can say, that Athens is only fair with its citizens. The allies have to pay the price to be weak and submit to Athens. This view is inconsistent with the eralier view - they should be harmonized -
- Does the description of the effects of the plague on Athens contradict Pericles' picture of the Athenian spirit? Why do you think that Thucydides immediately follows the funeral oration with the account of the plague?
Pericles paints a picture of a vibrant, enthusiastic Athenian spirit. During the plague people had no enthusiasm and easily gave up hope. They saw death all around them and knew that once they caught the plague they were almost certain to die from it soon. Enthusiasm was replaced with despair. Thucydides probably wants to provide a balanced picture of Athens and not be like other writers who show only the good or only the bad in people This is too vague. Which other writers? What is the point of the balance?-- Why does the plague have such dire effects on Athenian institutions, according to Thucydides? What does this suggest about human institutions in general?
In 2.53 Thucydides describes how the plague is affecting the rule of law in Athens. The citizens of Athens were so desperate because of the plague, that some did not respect any longer the institutions and the laws. "No fear of Gods or law of man deterred a criminal...For offences against human law no punishment was to be feared; no one would live long enough to be called to account. Already a far heavier sentence had been passed and was hanging over a man's head; before that fell, why should he not take a little pleasure?"I am not sure about this, but we could probably infer, that during a sever crises, a calamity (to use the word of Thucydides), institutions are no longer (or less) respected by the people.
- Does Thucydides mean to draw a lesson about the war from the effects of the plague?
Despite Thucydides' general aversion and derision of myth he personally finds it disturbing that so many natural disasters and plagues should go in tandem with the most devastating of human actions, finding that the "Old stories of past prodigies" became credible. Consider though what he says about some of the oracles: it is not thaty they became credible in the way people thought -- What is Cleon's basic reason for urging the Athenians to stick to their original decision? Is his speech consistent?
Cleon regards the revolt in Mytilene as a crime against Athens, particularly deserving of retribution because it was tantamount to a defection to Sparta. The execution of the men and enslavement of the women and children is a proportionate response to this crime, because it will act as a deterrent to other cities in similar situations as Mytilene. This attack would be the best advertisement for Athenian power; ultimately it is the fear of this power which will prevent other states in the empire from rebelling as well.As seen already in the lecture, Cleon supports the condemnation of the Mytilenaeans, because he thinks it is right to implement the decision, no matter how cruel this decision is (Thucydides rephrases Cleon's speech in 3.37 to 3.40). He thinks that changing the decision (and not condemn the Mytilenians) would be a sign of weakness of the Athenian democracy and the Mytilenians would loose respect of Athenians. He sees Mytilenians as subordinates of the Athenian empire. In 3.39 Cleon says: "I say to you that no single city has ever injured us so deeply as Mytilenè… they have rebelled; and entering the ranks of our bitterest enemies have conspired with them to seek our ruin…We should from the first have made no difference between the Mytilenaeans and the rest of our allies, and then their insolence would never have risen to such a height; for men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them. Yet it is not too late to punish them as their crimes deserve ". Cleon argues that Mytilene has to be punished, that their behavior must induce consequences, because otherwise the Athenian empire is in danger. Other allies of Athens could follow this 'bad' example if Athens does not react (it almost sound like the "Domino Theory" of the Cold War, which US Presided Eisenhower used to describe the rise of Communism in Indochina). I think the speech is in a certain way consistent, but if the means that Cleon wants use are successful to obtain Mytilenian's respect can be discussed.
- What is Diodotus' basic reason for urging the Athenians to change their original decision? Is his speech consistent?
Diodotus thinks that such an attack would set a precedent essentially mandating a "death sentence" for all cities which revolted. He doubts the efficacy of such a deterrent, because he feels it will remove any incentive for cities like Mytilene to repent, compensate Athens and continue to pay imperial tribute - an improtant source of war revenue. Instead, it will lead to these cities fighting to the death, leading to extended sieges and military action for Athens which will only drain the cities resources and hamper the war effort.- What role does justice play in Cleon and Diodotus' speeches on the Mytilenian debate? Do both Cleon and Diodotus avoid considerations of justice when making their speeches?
In Cleon's speech, the role of justice is wrapped up in interest. He focusses on the justice of the punishment of the Mytelenaeans in terms of the crime they committed: "punish them as their crime deserves." He argues it was a crime to revolt, deserving retribution. In order to deter other states from similarly revolting, punishment must ensue, no matter how cruel.Diodotus, in contrast, does not speak of justice at all - saying that practicalities are what are generally important in times of war. In this instance, practicalities mean that mercy ought to result. However, when Diodotus, before he begins his speech, says that "he who speaks in the course of right must make himself believed by lying", as "the best advice when offered in plain terms is as much distrusted as the worst... he is rewarded by a suspicion that... he gets more than he gives." Two inferences could be drawn from this:
a) That Diodotus in fact believes that justice is of more importance than his speech suggests - by saying that justice is of no importance, he is protecting himself from those who would believe he had outside interests, and must therefore lie, or
b) That Diodotus is in fact reinstating the realist position - that justice is of little relevance in international relations, and those who suggest that it does are both naive and potentially biased.
- Does Thucydides have a position in the debate? If so, what is his position?
- What do the Athenians mean when they say "when these matters [i.e., matters of war] are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept"?
The Athenian contingent here represents human laws – man-made realities – where the number of soldiers an army has represents respective power, and the outcome of any war. The quote refers to the 'true' meaning of justice between states:- Real’ justice can only occur between equals. If one party has disproportionate power over another, the bargaining power of that party is jeopardized as the other party is more able to represent his or her interests.
- Where parties have disproportionate power (as in the Melian/Athenian relationship), justice depends on the beneficence of the stronger party. Law and ‘justice’ is created by the stronger party, and imposed upon the weaker. The stronger party is able to impose whatever “they have the power to do.” Justice is unable to exist except insofar as a stronger party chooses (and they may well choose none.)
- It is in this way that as the stronger party, the Athenians are able to force the negotiations onto their own terms – away from arguments of principle, to arguments of practicalities.
- The practical argument here advanced by the Athenians, however, is disproved to a point – when they are unable to control the outcome of the negotiations. Rather than “accept[ing] what they have to accept”, the Melians choose to rely on the very arguments they are precluded from making – divine justice and moral principle, declining to surrender. Although the Athenians do in the end impose their might – destroying Melos – this was not the outcome to which the above quote referred – which appears to assume the reaction of the Melians before it has even been made. Certainly, by refusing to yield, Melos denied Athens – the “strong” - their most preferred outcome.
- Does Thucydides sympathize with the Athenian position, the Melian position, or neither?
Thucydides described interstate relations as amoral and anarchic. Therefore, it could be argued that Thucydides sympathized with either the Athenians or the Melians This would be contradictory: if he sympathizes with the Athenians, the Melian position would be incoherent -I disagree, Xavier. The two points of view may be inconsistent with each other, but either is broadly adoptable (if one position is taken, however, the other may then be rejected.) Either party could be argued as voicing Thucydides's personal sympathy. I may have misinterpreted the meaning of the question, as I have found distinguishing between this question and “What can we say about Thucydides' own position from the text?” quite difficult – therefore this answer may be a bit confused.
A) Evidence of sympathy towards the Athenians
If we accept (as many do, but I contest) that Thucydides actually supported the Athenian policies. There are many arguments favoring this view but I have chosen to focus more on the alternative.
- The arguments of the Athenians – that they as the strong will lord over the weak - are fulfilled. Neither the Gods nor the Spartans come to the aid of the Melians, who are destroyed (even if they create some trouble in the interim.)
- The way the Athenians limit the dialogue (away from moral matters to practical matters) is not cruel, it is merely the Athenians speaking frankly. It merely outlines the disparity between speech and action. Whether or not the Melians talk about morality, the real decision will be made on whether Athens has significant enough advantage to attack Melos.
- The Athenians, in being frank, are not being cruel – a humanitarian end can be extracted– convincing the Melians to save themselves the horror of siege. The fact that they are talking at all implies that they would prefer to persuade the Melians.
- The two options presented by the Athenians are the only options available – in the honest opinion of the Athenians, the Melians cannot be allowed to stay neutral or fight against them.
B) Evidence of sympathy towards the MeliansHowever there are also reasons to suggest that he may not think justice is so unimportant as we might think, and that he is actually sympathetic to the Melian position:
- Based on Thucydides' account of the dispute between the Melians and Athenians, what role, if any, does justice play in determining a state's foreign policy? Explain and assess the arguments of the Melians and the Athenians. (Taken from POLS/PHIL 2005 exam paper)
In the dialogue the Athenians give the Melians a choice of whether the island submits to Athens, pays tributes and survives, or fight Athens and be destroyed. The Melians argue their neutrality- appealing to justice and international law, which guarantees their right to neutrality. They also give several other counter-arguments, mainly that giving mercy to Melos will win the Athenians more friends; and also that the Spartans will come to Melos' aid. The Athenians, however, refuse to discuss their demands for justice- which if compared to the justice exclaimed by Pericles in the funeral oration- signifies the difference in approach to justice in domestic/international terms.The Athenians offer a sharp dose of true realism Why is this "realistic?" -
- Is Thucydides a realist? What can we say about Thucydides' own position from the text?
- Does Thucydides show that war corrupts peoples and individuals?
Thucydides I think believes that war does corrupt people and individuals because war has limits of justice and the pursuit for power and intrests are pushed towards war. War is part of Athenian life, to successed and progress war has to take its place. Thus showing war does corrupt people to believe they need war to fight for their own interests and power. Unclear - needs further explanation -Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected bibliography
- Alker, Hayward R. 1988. “The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue.” The American Political Science Review 82(3):805-820. Link.
- Ahrensdorf, Peter J. 1997. “Thucydides' Realistic Critique of Realism.” Polity 30(2):231-265. Link.
- Fitzsimons, M. A. 1975. “Thucydides: History, Science and Power.” The Review of Politics 37(3):377-397. Link.
- Forde, Steven. 1995. “International Realism and the Science of Politics: Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Neorealism.” International Studies Quarterly 39(2):141-160. Link.
- Forde, Steven. 1986. “Thucydides on the Causes of Athenian Imperialism.” The American Political Science Review 80(2):433-448. Link.
- Forde, Steven. 1992. “Varieties of Realism: Thucydides and Machiavelli.” The Journal of Politics 54(2):372-393. link.
- Garst, Daniel. 1989. “Thucydides and Neorealism.” International Studies Quarterly 33(1):3-27. Link.
- Hornblower, Simon. 1987. Thucydides. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Links: Library catalog.
A classicist's account of the life, historical context, and work of Thucydides.- Laurie M. Johnson Bagby. 1994. “The Use and Abuse of Thucydides in International Relations.” International Organization 48(1):131-153. Link.
- Kateb, George. 1964. “Thucydides' History: A Manual of Statecraft.” Political Science Quarterly 79(4):481-503. Link.
- Lebow, Richard Ned. 2001. “Thucydides the Constructivist.” The American Political Science Review 95(3):547-560. Link.
- Monoson, S. Sara, and Michael Loriaux. 1998. “The Illusion of Power and the Disruption of Moral Norms: Thucydides' Critique of Periclean Policy.” The American Political Science Review 92(2):285-297. Link.
- Orwin, Clifford. 1986. “Justifying Empire: The Speech of the Athenians at Sparta and the Problem of Justice in Thucydides.” The Journal of Politics 48(1):72-85. Link.
- Orwin, Clifford. 1989. “Piety, Justice, and the Necessities of War: Thucydides' Delian Debate.” The American Political Science Review 83(1):233-239. Link.
- Orwin, Clifford. 1988. “Stasis and Plague: Thucydides on the Dissolution of Society.” The Journal of Politics 50(4):831-847. Link.
- Orwin, Clifford. 1984. “The Just and the Advantageous in Thucydides: The Case of the Mytilenaian Debate.” The American Political Science Review 78(2):485-494. Link.
- Orwin, Clifford. 1989. “Thucydides' Contest: Thucydidean "Methodology" in Context.” The Review of Politics 51(3):345-364. Link.
- Orwin, Clifford. 1994. The Humanity of Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Links: Library catalog.
A thoughtful examination of the political philosophy revealed in Thucydides' work.Aristotle
Table of Contents
Background
Aristotle was born around 384 BC in Thrace. His father was the court physician to Macedon.
At the age of eighteen Aristotle travelled to Athens to learn at Plato's Academy and remained there until Plato's death around 20 years later. He subsequently became the tutor of the young Alexander the Great until Alexander reached the age of sixteen and became regent of Macedon. Bertrand Russell suggests that Aristotle had little if any practical influence on Alexander; however this is repudiated by historians such as JR Hamilton.
Aristotle lived out almost the rest of his life in Athens, probably writing most of his books and teaching during this period. After the death of Alexander the Great in Babylon the Athenians revolted against Macedon and turned on those who were seen to be friends of Alexander, forcing Aristotle into exile. He died the year after, in 322 BC.
Sources:
Russell, B. History of Western Philosophy. 1942 (2007 reprint)
Hamilton, J.R. Alexander the Great. 1974
Aristotle, like Thucydides, believed conflict between human beings in social life and politics to be inevitable. This theory influenced the theologian in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas. In relation, Aristotle also believed that while strife and conflict are permanent features of comunal life (intra and inter communal strife) he believed the political community has the responsibility to act in accordance with the welfare of every human being -- not just its citizens. He did not think it appropriate to conquer and rule other regimes, because it is denying other human beings their freedom and status as fellow humans. He did however believe that defensive war was perfectly permissible.
Source? -
Readings
Summary
Chapter 1: What or who is a citizen?
Aristotle begins his book with the definition of citizen, because they “compose the state”.
He first explains who is NOT a citizen. “A citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place”, which means that resident aliens and slaves are not citizens, even when they live together with citizens. Children (“too young”) and “too old men” are not seen as citizen. Aristotle does not mention the status of women (or did I miss it?), but after reading Book 1 I don’t think they are citizens --> "the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior" (Book 1, ch. 5).
So, we can infer that all the other Athenians (male, not too young, not too old, not slaves and Athenians) are citizens.
At the very end Aristotle gives the definition: “He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.”
The definition given by Aristotle is “best adapted to the citizen of a democracy”.
Chapter 2: How can a person become a citizen and what if a person is but perhaps ought not to be a citizen?
“…But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens”.
Aristotle questions who is to be considered a citizen. Should it be someone that has parents who are citizens? Does it need to go up two, three, or four generations? Aristotle concludes that the problem is still, "How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen?" Who ought to be citizens? Continuing the reading, Aristotle seems to believe that they must free. Free to deliberate of the correct decisions to be made. These decisions will alter the community and allow them to attain the good life. Aristotle believes that even if there are varying forms of communities, that citizenship is defined by the legal requirements of the society.
Chapter 3: When the form of government changes
Chapter 4: Good citizen v good man. When all are good citizens the state is perfect. Not all can be good men. Good citizens have different virtues that together make up the state like the different parts of the body. Furthermore, citizens (with their different abilities) are all working together for a single objective: "the salvation of the community." A good citizen should be able to rule and obey. The only time the virtues of a good citizen and a good man coincide is in a good ruler. A good ruler must be wise.
Chapter 5: Who is and is not a citizen. Different types of citizens/different definitions of a citizen under different forms of government.
Chapter 6: Forms of government: master over slave, household management, politics. Whose interests is the ruler looking out for?
Chapter 7: True forms of government (rulers govern with a view to the common interest) v. perversions (rulers govern with a view to private interests). The true forms of Government: One ruler (kingship or royalty) v. a few (aristocracy) v. many (constitution).
Chapter 8: Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy. Problems with definitions of Oligarchy and Democracy: is the difference rule by the wealthy or rule by the poor, or is the difference rule by the majority or rule by the minority, or are these the same things.
Justice
Chapter 9: The end of the state is the good life.
Chapter 10: Who is the supreme power in a state? The unjust consequences of the multitude, the wealthy, the good, the one best man, or the tyrant ruling.
Chapter 11: Why the multitude should be the supreme power.
Chapter 12: Politics and equality: those who are greater in the relevant qualities should have the greater positions.
Chapter 13: Who should rule.
Ostracism = getting rid of those who are far superior to everyone else. Practiced by democracies which aim for equality.
Royalty
Chapter 14: 5 different types of royalty: Lacedaemonian (generalship with power over religion), Barbarian monarchy (legal and hereditary), Dictatorship (elected tyranny--legal but not hereditary), Heroic Monarch (exercised with limited power of voluntary subjects), Kingly Rule (household management of state).
Chapter 15: The two extremes of royalty
Rule by man or rule by law? Rule by law is inflexible and passionless therefore rule by man is better but it should be a large group not an individual ie. Aristocracy not royalty
Chapter 16: Controversies relating to monarchy: limited monarchy/kingship and absolute monarchy, succession, need for advisers or subordinates
Chapter 17: What natures are suited for government by a king, and what for an aristocracy, and what for a constitutional government.
Chapter 18: Conclusion/Summary
Book 7
Chapter 1: The best life for individuals and for the state is the life of virtue. Those who are governed in the best manner will be able to lead the best life.
Chapter 2: The happiness of the individual is the same as the happiness of the state. Is it better to be a philosopher or a statesman? Despotic governments - don't care about justice. It's unlawful to rule without regard to justice
Chapter 3: Not every rule is necessarily a despotic master/slave relationship. Happiness is virtuous activity, and an active life is best for both states and individuals.
Characteristics of a state
Chapter 4: The population should be limited to the minimum number of citizens needed to achieve the good life. A very populous state will be disorderly and impossible to govern well.
Chapter 5: The Territory of the State must be large enough for its inhabitants to live leisurely. It must also be self sufficient, well protected yet positioned for trade and agricultural production.
Chapter 6: Connection with the sea & maritime power. It is better to be connected to the sea for both protection and trade. A naval force in proportion to the size of the state is also beneficial for protection of the state and its neighbors.
Chapter 7: Character of citizens. They should be high-spirited and intelligent.
Chapter 8: Property: food, arts, arms, revenue, worship, power of deciding what's for the public interest.
Chapter 9: Occupation: mechanics, tradesmen, husbandmen not citizens but are a necessary part of the state
two classes: warriors and councillors. Some people may be both at different times.
Priests are the old men of both the warrior and councillor classes
Chapter 10: Distribution of land: private & public
Chapter 11: Situation of city: health, convenient for political administration and war, abundance of springs, some buildings in straight lines others irregular, walls
Chapter 12: Locations of common tables and agoras
Chapter 13: Happiness & virtue of state & man
Chapter 14: All citizens should take turns governing and being governed.
What is necessary eg war and what is honourable eg peace. Use what is necessary to achieve what is honourable
Chapter 15: Leisure. Temperance, courage, endurance justice.
Study Questions
- What is the difference between political and non-political government?
When I talk about a non-political government in a conversation I am usually referring to a government that is not democratically elected. However I am unsure if this is what we are referring to here. Can anyone help? What is a non-political government. Is it rulers that govern independent from the political realm of modern states, perhaps like religious rulers of the Nation of Islam, or is it referring to despotic governments that rule unelected. If is is the latter, then I think Aristotle (along with other classical thinkers) realised that a political government, survives on the equality of its citizens. A political government could not govern well when there were only very rich and very poor people because the former "could only rule despotically" and the poor could only "be ruled like slaves" leading "to a city, not of free persons but of slaves and masters"- would a city governed like this count as a non-political government.-What does it mean to say that the state (polis) is natural? In Aristotle’s philosophy, the origin of the cities or polis it is a natural human behavior. Humans beings tend to regroup themselves. It is not a common enemy or fear who makes humans live together. That is not the origin of the “polis”. War is not the origin of the cities. For Aristotle, “polis” is a natural association. For this reason he qualifies human beings as “zoon politikon” ("political animal”). Thus, Aristotle despises Sparta’s political regime because all its institutions are dedicated to war. And for him, a city does not have to think all the time in war. War is tool to reach peace A citation would be useful -
- What other (non-political) communities are natural? Are there any "artificial" communities? What distinguishes different communities from one another?
The purpose behind the community makes it natural or unnatural. Groups that create functionality in a persons life are edifying to them unclear -The difference between a 'natural' community and an 'artificial' community is the basic necessity of belonging to the group. For example; if a person belonged to a chess playing group they could leave at any time without detriment to themselves but if they were to leave their family that would be 'unnatural'.
- What does it mean to say that human beings are political animals? What makes them political?
Man is the only animal that has been given the gift of rational thought, speech, and a sense of good and evil (justice). Human beings in their 'natural' progression lead to the formation of a political structure - the polis which exists as a mechanism for the sake of the 'good life', one guided by virtue in which humans use their abilities to the fullest.- What does the good life mean?
Socrates said that all men desire happiness. For Aristotle to seek the good-life was to promote the fullness of ones nature. Every being has it's own inherent nature, and the good life occurs when these natures are completely fulfilled. A plant has the nature to grow, reproduce, and nourish itself. A good plant will be one that does this fully and will appear healthy and strong. Animals have a higher nature to fulfill then plants with their more acute sensory abilities. Therefore an animal's "good-life" is when it can sense well, be able to move well, have a healthy appetite and more. Humans have an even greater potential nature that brute animals, with the abilities of intelligence and reasoning- so for the good life humans must satisfy all the other basic needs and have the ability of good choice and reason. -man nature has specific powers, namely, intellect, will, and the concupiscible and irascible appetites. And so human happiness is going to lie in the perfection or right ordering of those human powers.
- What does it mean to say that the state (polis) perfects or completes the family and the household?
Aristotle believe there was a 'natural' progression from the family (which is the smallest unit for procreation), to the household (which provides for the immediate necessities for life), to the village (which provides for the wider economic environment for living, e.g jobs, goods and services) to the polis which completes a human being's (wealthy male citizen) development. This completion in development comes about through the fulfillment of the persons mental requirements, partaking in the arts and politics. This is the good life, what we might call a 'rewarding' life. "And the state is the union of families and villages in a perfect self-sufficing life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life." Aristotle, Book 3, chapter 9, line 40.Further to this, the state is seen as a perfection of the family as it balances out the imperfect nature of man and also his household. Without the state "the unholiest, the most savage and the most abandoned to gluttony and lust" is created. "Justice belongs to the political society". The state enforces its strive for perfection on individuals through education and habituation, thus protecting the children from the partial mind of the father and giving it to the objective law of the state.
- What are natural slaves?
Natural slaves are people whose characteristics mean that they are better off being ruled by another. They may have a weak mental capacity for example that means that if they were left to themselves they could not survive or survive very well.A natural slave is defined (usually) by characteristics unique to the body and the soul. The first characteristic, in terms of the soul, is weakness. The weakness of a soul is the lack of fortitude to govern over others (which is an inherent trait in an individual).
“…he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.”
An example of those born with a weakness of the soul is a person born with a servile soul - this encompasses the inability to command authority amongst your peers. In reality those qualities that define a strong or weak soul would derive from learning (e.g. education in reasoning) coupled with the opportunity that comes from your parents status at birth. In Aristotle's day it would seem natural that those who were slaves appeared to be born with a weakness of the soul because the qualities that they learned were those of servitude. The vice versa is also true.
Aristotle compares this weakness to animals. Aristotle however, does not go as far as to equate slaves with animals. Even though the work and service they provide to the master is indistinguishable between a slave and an animal the difference is in the capacity to be able to understand that they should be ruled.
The second characteristic, in terms of the body, is strength. Nature has endowed slaves with the physical capacity to carry out their service.
“Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen and slaves”.
It is, however, not always true that a slave will be born (or raised) with the characteristics that would have seemed natural to Aristotle. "But the opposite often happens -- that some have the soul and others have the bodies of freemen". 'Nature' in some cases will get it wrong. The type of bodies that Aristotle believes nature endows slaves with are ones that are suited to manual labour, just as the ox and other animals of burden.
- So is slavery actually compassionate (for those weak of mind)?
Aristotle argues that it is both "expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters" (I.VI) It is actually better for the slave to be ruled and, in a sense, taken care of by the master. When this relationship is natural, the slave and the master are friends and working in the same interest.There are two facets to this question, the first is whether Aristotle believe in theory natural slaves existed and the second is whether he believed they actually existed.
Argumentation in favour of the proposition that Aristotle thought there were natural slaves:
Prime facie it does not seem to be in dispute that Aristotle believed that slavery could exist:
In Aristotle's work there is a clear sense of hierarchy. The point behind slavery, for Aristotle is doing what is in the best interest of the man. Some people are meant to govern, while others are meant to be governed. Aristotle believes that some people need to be ruled. He believes that in certain cases, there are people whom it would be better to be slaves then free. An analogy for Aristotle is the similarity between master and slave; and a man and an ox.
It is unclear whether this is in the exclusive realm of theory, or whether Aristotle actual believed some slaves fitted into this analysis.
Argumentation against the proposition that Aristotle in reality thought there were natural slaves:
On the second facet to this question it is the author's opinion that it is a point of interpretation as to whether we construct Aristotle words to mean he actually believed in reality that slaves existed. The question mush be: how many people fit into this category? This point can only be answered by a personal interpretation of the constituent elements of a natural slave.
As noted above a natural slave has a weakness of the soul that creates an inability to command/rule (1.5); it seems reasonable to infer from Aristotle that the strength of a person's soul is linked to their virtue and the stronger that virtue the less likely one is to be ruled. Aristotle however, says that the difference between a ruler and a slave is not a matter of degree but a distinction based on kind:
"the virtue of the ruler we in maintain to be different from that of the subject; the one being the virtue of the rational, and the other of the irrational part"(1.13)
Therefore it seems to suggest that Aristotle believe the balance between the rational side of a human and their irrational side will determine the servile nature of that human (this seems to be a matter of degree and not kind. It may be argued that the imbalance between bands of rulers and those that are ruled are great as to break the nature of degree). Women and children had a ratio that meant they were more irrational than men, therefore subject to rule.
The reasoning then that Aristotle follows seems to become contradictory (or in the author’s opinion a sign that Aristotle did not think natural slavery actually existed), because Aristotle first states that:
"[natural slaves]…since they are men…share in rational principle, [therefore] it seems absurd [to] say that they have no virtue"(1.13). He suggests that being a human endows one with some capacity for rational virtue (id est "temperance, courage justice").
Prima facie this does not seem contradictory, because it would just seem that a small amount of rationality does exist in a slave. Aristotle however, seems to contradict this notion by stating earlier that natural slaves have "no deliberative faculty at all" (1.13). When coupling these two sentiments together the constituents of the people that are natural slaves are at best negligible or at worst non-existent.
Further to the analysis Aristotle argues that there are also people who are slaves, due to war and other instances that do not come within the sphere of his definition of a natural slave. It seem as a matter of pragmatism that they have been relegated to such a position.
- How can it be good for a natural slave to be ruled by another?
When natural slaves, who are ruled by another, ultimately benefit from being animate tools it is good for both slave and master. Just as a sheep or a cow benefit from being looked after in a nice paddock, with feed and water- so too would natural slaves be better off in being ruled by another. This seems to prove too much - don't most people benefit from beeing fed etc. by others? But the slave does not get to pursue any of his/her own purposes -The relationship between master and slave represents the ability for one man to control another. If a natural slave is a man who works using their bodies, and this is the best that they can do, then it is best for them to be ruled by another. Just as it is advantageous for an animal to be under human control and be protected from predators, a natural slave can benefit from being ruled by another. They have the means to contribute to the polis and the security of having a master to provide for.
- Are non-Greeks natural slaves?
Aristotle in I.VI makes a comment on the Greek's relativism when it come to slavery; "Wherefore Hellenes do not like to call Hellenes slaves, but confine the term to barbarians... Hellenes regard themselves as noble everywhere, and not only in their own country, but they deem the barbarians noble only when at home, thereby implying that there are two sorts of nobility and freedom, the one absolute, the other relative." In pointing this out Aristotle is clearly indicating that the relativism is relative, the 'Barbarian' nobles would feel the same way towards the Greeks assumedly. The Persian's might treat the Greek nobles as nobles on their own terms, i.e., sending emisaries and so forth, but still consider them the Barbarians relative to themselves.- Does Aristotle think Greeks are superior to non-Greeks? Why?
This answer needs evidence - and it is at any rate inconsistent with the answer of the previous question. Aristotle didn't necessarily believe what other Greek citizens believed; and see above. On the other hand, there are citations that might support this position -Perhaps a reason why Aristotle assumes barbarians are natural slaves is the distinction he makes between how different societies are ruled. Greeks are ruled politically with inequalities for the benefit of the polis; man and woman, father and child, slave and master. Non-Greeks, such as the Persians, tended to be ruled despotically with one person with total power. Aristotle could have supposed that a society ruled despotically meant that everyone was a slave to their ruler. This could be reason for the belief that Greeks were superior to barbarians.
- What does it mean to say that the purpose of a "state" (polis) is "the good life"?
The polis as "the good life" may not be good for everyone. The purpose of the state being the good life maybe for those that are the 'citizens' of the state, those with control and wealth. But what about the slaves etc? those who are not citizens may not be the good life?. But on saying this the polis is better then any life as it gives a sense of security, control, and belonging to some sort of community for most. "Polis" are there to grow with power and wealth over each other giving the 'citizens' a sense of power and happyness to their achievements, therefore a "good life".- Why do mere relations of interest fail to constitute a political community (Politics 1280b1ff)?
- Why couldn't law be "a surety to one another of justice", according to Aristotle? Why is the political community not simply an association with a view to common protection and the prevention of harms resulting from the action of others?
The safety and protection of one's own property is necessary for the production of goods and services needed to live own's life. If a political community was only concerned with protecting external harms from impacting on the members of a society, then it would be only concerned with protecting the necessary conditions required for the society to exist. Aristotle's conception of the political community is broader; it should not only protect, but should be in place to ensure a "good" or virtuous life which is above and beyond the basic requirements of existence. Common protection is thus not sufficient to constitute a political community in Aristotle's view.- Does Aristotle think that political communities are a kind of "social contract"? Why or why not?
No I don't think Aristotle saw the polis in terms of a social contract agreement. The social-contract exists so that individuals can leave the state of nature, due to fear of violence and death. In a polis, certainly a partnership existed, but this community did not exist to avert injustices or to provide economic stability . As discussed above, it existed to provide the good life- "[the community] exists for the sake of noble actions, not for the sake of living together". -I think it could be considered a social contract, although imagined in a different sense.To put it simply, Aristotle suggests that people form a community to make their lives good. Liberal theorists suggested that people formed a community to stop their lives from being bad.
There is a difference, but I think it's perhaps more subtle than you let on.
-
- What is Aristotle's attitude towards trade? Does he think trade is beneficial to a community? Why or why not?
Aristotle acknowledges that it is necessary to position a city where it is able to participate in trade. States must both import those necessary non-native goods and export those which are found in abundance. Aristotle does, however, argue that a "city ought to be a market, not indeed for others, but for herself." The aim of the city should not be becoming a powerful trading hub in search of large profit, but to gain those goods necessary for the good life of its citizens.Before I explain why Aristotle rejects democracy, we have to see how he see the political regimes. For him there are three kind of political regimes:
- Monarchy
- Polity
- Aristocracy
All of them can be corruptible:- Tyranny
- Democracy
- Oligarchy
The first group of regimes is the good because they look for the common interest. But the second group of the regimes is the bad because they look after only for the interest of their own class:- A monarchy is good when the monarch looks for the interest of all the community. Its corruption is tyranny. The tyrant only looks for his own interest.
- A polity is good when the people look after the common interest. Its corruption is democracy. People look for the interest of poor people.
- An Aristocracy is good when the aristocrats look after the interest of the city. Its corruption is Oligarchy, when rich people look after interest of rich people.
Like every ancient Philosopher, Aristotle does not agree with democracy or a popular regime. He thinks the city has to be ruled by someone capable of it, someone who has the right education to do it. He does not believe in the mass because is easy to corrupt it. Consider the passages in book 3 about the relatively smaller corruptibility of a group of people: 1286a and following. Does that sound as if Aristotle thought that the mass is more easily corrupted?- What is the best sort of regime like, for Aristotle? How does it compare to modern states?
Aristotle thinks, like Polybius, in a mixed regime: the Republic. But his republic is not like we know it. He thinks in a democratic aristocracy. The aristocracy is a group of people who can look after the city’s common interest. And therefore, they have been prepared to do that. They have the right education. *8This is not correct - Polybius for one thing comes later than Aristotle, and Aristotle does not think the truly best regime is mixed -Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
- Finley, Moses. 1980. Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology. London: Chatto and Windus. Library catalog.
Explores the issue of slavery among the Greeks. Discusses Aristotle's views on natural slavery.- Ambler, Wayne. 1987. "Aristotle on Nature and Politics: The Case of Slavery." Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 3., pp. 390-410. Link.
- Smith, Nicholas D. 1983. "Aristotle's Theory of Natural Slavery." Phoenix, Vol. 37, No. 2., pp. 109-122. Link.
- Dobbs, Darrell. 1994. "Natural Right and the Problem of Aristotle's Defense of Slavery." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 56, No. 1., pp. 69-94. Link.
Abstract: Many social theorists, appalled at the moral enormities made possible by the modern scientific conquest of nature, now look to a restoration of classic natural right as a standard for human affairs. But the key role of slavery in Aristotle's magisterial exposition of natural right is typically overlooked. Commentators on Aristotle's account of natural slavery add to the perplexity, charging that this account is culturally biased and logically inconsistent. Such charges play into the hands of the opponents of natural right, whose common theme is the inability of reason to overcome such biases in its search for what is right by nature. Lacking a defense of the moral and theoretical respectability of Aristotle's account of slavery, the restorationists' cause must remain unpersuasive. To provide this defense, I suggest that Aristotle's teleology implies that the natural slave, generally speaking, is made not born. Child-rearing and other cultural practices, which ordinarily promote the natural destiny of mankind, may instead subvert this telos by inculcating a dysfunctional, slavish second nature. Despotic rule may be said to be natural in such cases, and only insofar as it aids the slave in better realizing the telos proper to a human being. Aristotle quite consistently condemns all employments of the slave that are uncongenial to the reformation of slavishness and allows for emancipation in the event of this achievement.Cicero
Table of Contents
Background
Cicero was a prominent and brilliant lawyer, orator and statesman, rising to the position of consul in 63 BCE. Politically, Cicero was opposed to the formation of the Empire and advocated a republican form of government. This placed him offside with powerful figures in the tumolt preceding the civil war, as he was critical of the rule of both Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, and refused to join Caesar's first triumvirate with Crassus and Pompey. Following the victories of Mark Antony Cicero was a hunted man and was assassinated in 43 BCE.
Summarised from Robin Lane Fox, The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and Rome (2005), 366-376.
Cicero urged the Romans to adopt Stoic ethical teachings (Stoicism began in Greece).
Key points to Stoicism: (1) No one is outside the real community, the human community -- they developed the idea of 'citizens of the world.' (2) Humans live in a series of concentric circles, first encircling the self, then the family, then the extended family, then close personal friends, then neighbors, then city dwellers, then country men and then humanity as a whole. (3) And our obligation/duty is to give each of these circles their due respect. (4) Human beings are meant to follow natural law, which arises from reason.
Readings
Summary
Cicero's (as shown by Scipio's position) argument concerning the deficiencies of democracy are similar to Aristotles - that the rich are thought by the mob to be the most virtuous and the best. Scipio then proposes the aristocracy as an alternative between mob disorder/ and the greed and vice that manifests due to tyranny. However Scipio continues to advocate monarchy as the best form of government (pp 24 section 54).
Study Questions
- Are there any differences between Cicero's conception of the political community and Aristotle's?
In two main points both views are very similar: humans are sociable and the distinction of three regimes (monarchy, aristocracy and “popular regime”). But Cicero’s conception of political community is more realistic than Aristotle’s view. Even a mixed regime is really close from reality (the vision of Scipio will come true, because Rome will be the first city empire to have a mixed regime. According to Polybius, Rome is powerful because of its mixed regime). Otherwise, in any case Scipio talks about a “best regime” ruled by gods or semi-gods. And Cicero’s point of view is more based in the law: Scipio says that a political community is a group of people who agree to be together by laws. There is no community without laws.Cicero's argument for loyalty to the republic in On Duties is similar to Aristotle's naturalistic explanation of the polis. Both writers build the units of society up from the nuclear family, through the extended family and economic community, to culminate in their individual conceptions of a good form of governance. For Cicero, this is the republic, which "embraces the affections of all of us" (On Duties, 1.57). This is not far removed from Aristotle's argument that the polis is the necessary government to ensure a virtuous life for its citizenry.
Cicero points out that even if the best forms of rule are aristocracy and monarchy, they can easily be corrupted as like Aristotle the value of either regime is dependant entirely on the virtue of its members. The people make the 'common error' of seeing virtue as equivelent to wealth and property, the leaders themselves cling to the title of 'best men' that they have given themselves. "There is no uglier state than that in which the richest are thought to be best" (Republic 1.52). This is very similar to Aristotle's conception that wealth itself is not an ends but a tool.
- What are the differences (if any) between Aristotle's and Cicero's arguments concerning the best form of rule?
Scipio says that the best form of rule would be a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy and rule by the people. The next best, and more practical/realistic form is monarchy.Scipio also says that "the nature of any common wealth corresponds to the nature or the desires of its ruling power." ([49])
If Scipio is the voice of Cicero, which it is not clear that this is true, then he is arguing that the common wealth is more or less defined by the ruling power. This leads me to believe that Cicero, like the Stoics, sees the common wealth or the "good life" as something that is different for various peoples and governments. It is in the nature of the authority to define the common wealth. Aristotle would greatly contest this view. From Aristotle's views, he believes that there are many routes to the "good life" but only one uniform goal. All routes should lead to the same end, the "good life."
Is this really more realistic? What does Scipio really say at the end of the first book of the De republica? What is an example of the mixed regime? -
Cicero felt that the strongest and most important relationship between men of good character was one born of familiarity. He argues that good virtues (justice and liberality especially) are honourable qualities that draw men to men that posess them. He further states that friendship and fellowship are utmost when men pursue the same common good objectives. What he means by all this is that when men strive to achieve a common and joint goal their relations will be cemented by familiarity and similar purpose. And when the men are bonded to each other in this fashion they will see the good deeds commited by others and they will admire, appreciate and honor those persons.
- Do we have obligations to people outside our state, according to Cicero? How strong are these?
Cicero states that as Plato said: "we were not born for ourselves alone" (De Officiis 1.7), our country, friends, and family all claim a 'share' in our being. Men "are born for the sake of men" and assisting one another is our duty. However our obligations to other still are ordered by priority:- Our country and parents (they have given us our lives)
- Our children and family (they depend on us for support and protection)
- Our Kinsmen (we live and work with them to achieve similar goals)
Although we are universally connected by our human bond, we do not hold the same obligations to those not included in the above categories (1.17). Cicero suggests that all should adopt of policy of at least being able to give that which costs the giver nothing to anyone (De Officiis 1.16.51)- Does Cicero have a conception of just war?
Cicero believes that conflicts between states should be resolved through rational discussion, if at all possible, as this is a "characteristic of man." The only cause for the use of force is if this discussion fails, and a state must act in order "that we may live in peace unharmed" (De Officias 1.11.35). Even through the use of this force, however, Cicero believes in mercy and justice towards the enemy. Promises toward the enemy must be kept and protection must be provided for those combatants who surrender in battle. In order for a war to be "just," the necessary legal procedures authorizing such a war the state must be followed and a clear declaration must be made to the enemy.Lecture Notes
External Resources
Selected Bibliography
Other thinkers